Thus far, however, there have not been any significant protests against ECA's conduct in the GNEF from smaller clubs.
It seems that at present, the GNEF has a rather strong anchorage in participating groups and organisations.
The emergence of the GNEF has certainly benefitted UEFA's transparency (Garcia 2007b; Holt 2009).
As stressed above, interactions within the GNEF take place in different institutional frameworks, so that the remit and composition of the network is not fully visible to concerned publics.
The GNEF does not display an acceptable responsiveness towards criticisms and alternative policy proposals raised in the public debate, nor does it engage in a constructive dialogue with its critics.
Our conclusion is that again, improvements have been made in recent years regarding the anchorage of the GNEF in this dimension.
Their participation in the GNEF has certainly led to their political empowerment and this is especially the case for FIFPro.
The specific nature of the driving forces behind the GNEF led to the empowerment of certain -very important- stakeholders.
The impasse revealed a suspiciousness towards FIFPro's increasing influence in the GNEF and this is mostly connected to divergent views on contractual stability.
In that respect, the EU sees the GNEF as a part of a broader democratic process.
Overall, the GNEF has certainly contributed to a greater amount of democratic innovation in European professional football.
A lack of extensive data requires us to be cautious when drawing conclusions on the democratic legitimacy of the GNEF. Further research is necessary to provide more detailed and empirically supported evidence which will ensure that more concrete recommendations can be made and specified.