Suchergebnisse

The European football is in need of proper governance. This fact has been acknowledged in a number of EU documents, as well as by some of its member-states, Britain and France in particular. Weak governance undermines the financial stability of football clubs and the ability of sport to fullfil its key social functions. Besides other things, it open channels of external interference in the functioning of FIFA and UEFA as selfregulating bodies of football governance. The present article is devoted to the exploration of governance modes transformation in European and international football, influences by the European integration process. Global governance is employed here as an analytical approach. It allows to specify the role of the EU in development and maintenance of rules and norms, which limit the freedom of state and nonstate actors, involved in the sphere of football. The 2007 Lisbon Treaty endowed the EU with direct competence in the field of sport. But today it will still be a mistake to conclude that the European institutions are directly responsible for the formation of new structures of football governance. Nevertheless, their activity does have an impact on the lives of those who are involved in it. Unsatisfied stakeholders (football clubs, players and fans) turn to the EU for support when seeking alternative ways for settlement of disputes, when they do not find resolution in the internal structures of football governance. Vertical pathways, established in the traditional pyramid of the European football governance are subsequently undermined. Thus, the EU infl uence makes it easier to turn to structures of network governance.

With the aim of methodological reflection, this article analyses the three approaches (realist, constructivist and relational) in international relations theory most commonly employed to study foreign policy and the global influence of the European Union. Pivotal notions such as 'agency', 'identity', 'norms', 'system' and 'practice' provide us with navigation points between these approaches, enabling us to achieve a clearer impression of the many different meanings these terms can contain. These meanings, in their turn, fix the direction, limitations and scope of any concrete theoretic analysis. This article is meant to draw particular attention to Bourdieuvian practice theor y and Alexander Bogdanov's tektology as two differing variants of relationism, with a view to overcoming certain deficiencies in application to the studies of the EU of methodological individualism, as employed in more 'traditional' theories. To illustrate the relationalist way of theorising when dealing with the paradoxes of the EU external policies and global role, a follow-up interpretation, based on tektology, is given in conclusion to the resilience turn in the EU global strategy