Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Sale of Rights to Broadcast Sporting Events Under EC Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Sports Law

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 1623 Accesses

Abstract

Although it may be intuitively appealing to assume that an integrated market for Europe inevitably brings with it an integrated regulatory strategy underpinning that market, the EC Treaty does not provide for this. Article 5(1) EC declares that ‘The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.’ This is commonly referred to as the principle of ‘attributed competence’. It is constitutionally fundamental. Accordingly the EC possesses no general regulatory competence and it cannot ‘self-authorise’ an increase in its own competence. It may act only in the areas in which the Member States have granted it a mandate. Extension of the grant rests with the Member States acting at times of periodic Treaty revision.

First published in International Sports Law Journal 2006 issue 3/4, pp 3–27.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Pollack 1994, 95; Weatherill 2004A, 1.

  2. 2.

    For comparative inquiry, see e.g., Nicolaidis and Howse 2001, especially Ch. 3 and Ch. 4; Young 2002, 1612; Halberstam 2004, 731.

  3. 3.

    Cf., e.g., Weatherill 2005B, 23; Davies 2006, 63; Cooper 2006, 281.

  4. 4.

    Cf., e.g., Von Bogdandy and Bast 2002, 227; Dashwood 2004, 355; Hanf and Baumé 2003, 135.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Von Bogdandy and Bast 2002, especially pp. 239–250; De Burca and De Witte 2002; Mayer 2001; Michel 2003, 17.

  6. 6.

    Cf., e.g., Art. 152 on public health, Art. 153 on consumer protection, Arts. 174–176 on environmental policy.

  7. 7.

    See Weatherill 1999; Scott 1998.

  8. 8.

    Art. 152(5) EC.

  9. 9.

    On press diversity see Case C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, [1997] ECR I-3689; on health care see Case C-157/99, B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v. Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, H.T.M. Peerbooms v. Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen, [2001] ECR I-5473; Case C-372/04 ex parte Watts judgment of 16 May 2006.

  10. 10.

    Cf., e.g., Poiares Maduro 1999; Craufurd Smith 2004; Oliver 2005.

  11. 11.

    Case 240/83, [1985] ECR 531.

  12. 12.

    Case C-376/98, [2000] ECR I-8419.

  13. 13.

    Opinion 2/94, Accession by the EC to the ECHR, [1994] ECR I-1759.

  14. 14.

    See for example use of imprecise adjectives and adverbs in the judgment such as genuinely, likely, probable, appreciable and ‘remote and indirect’ in Paras. 84, 86, 97, 108, and 109 of the judgment respectively. Usher 2001, 1519.

  15. 15.

    Case C-377/98, [2001] ECR I-7079.

  16. 16.

    Case C-491/01, [2002] ECR I-11543.

  17. 17.

    Case C-210/03, [2004] ECR I-0000.

  18. 18.

    Cases C-154/04 & C-155/04, [2005] ECR I-0000.

  19. 19.

    Case C-372/04, note 9 above, Para. 121.

  20. 20.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-512/03 J E J Blankaert, judgment of 8 September 2005.

  21. 21.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-446/03 Marks and Spencer v. Halsey, judgment of 13 December 2005.

  22. 22.

    Case C-265/95 Commission v. France, [1997] ECR I-6959.

  23. 23.

    Case C-423/98 Albore, [2000] ECR I-5965.

  24. 24.

    Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer, [1999] ECR I-1661, Case C-464/98 Westdeutsche Landesbank v. Stefan, [2001] ECR I-173.

  25. 25.

    Cf., e.g., Kieninger 1996, 41; Rutgers 2005; Drobnig, Snijders and Zippro 2006.

  26. 26.

    Case 36/74, [1974] ECR 1405.

  27. 27.

    Case 13/76, [1976] ECR 1333.

  28. 28.

    Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR I-4921.

  29. 29.

    In Case T-313/02, David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, [2004] ECR II-3291 the Court of First Instance allowed itself to be lured down the misleading path of uncritically separating out sport from its commercial impact: see further Weatherill 2005A, 416. The case is pending on appeal before the Court: Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Dabscheck 2004, 69; Drolet 2006, 66. See also Egger and Stix-Hackl 2002, 81.

  31. 31.

    E.g., Parrish 2003; Greenfield and Osborn 2000; Meier 2005; Barani 2005, 42; Van den Bogaert and Vermeersch 2006, 821–840.

  32. 32.

    Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, [1979] ECR 649.

  33. 33.

    E.g. – and by no means adopting the same outlook – Weatherill 2005C; Reich and Micklitz 2003; Grundmann, Kerber and Weatherill 2001; Rösler 2004; Riesenhuber 2003.

  34. 34.

    E.g., on environmental law see Scott 1998, Jans 2000, especially Chs. I and III; on labour market regulation and social policy more generally, see Kenner 2003, Barnard 2000; on family law see Caracciolo di Torella and Masselot 2004, 32; on health care law see Hervey and McHale 2004.

  35. 35.

    Egan 2001.

  36. 36.

    Art. 3(g) EC.

  37. 37.

    Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV, [1999] ECR I-3055.

  38. 38.

    See, e.g., Albors-Llorens 2002.

  39. 39.

    Reg. 2659/2000, OJ 2000 L 304/7.

  40. 40.

    Reg. 2790/1999, OJ 1999 L 336/21.

  41. 41.

    For a detailed examination, see Whish 2003, pp. 168–174, Chs. 15 and 16.

  42. 42.

    See for detail Whish 2003, Chs. 7 and 8.

  43. 43.

    OJ 2003 L 1/1.

  44. 44.

    Cf., e.g., Gilliams 2003, 451; Venit 2003, 545.

  45. 45.

    Art. 23 Reg. 1/2003.

  46. 46.

    OJ 2006 C 00/00, available via http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/fines_en.pdf.

  47. 47.

    OJ 2002 C 45/3.

  48. 48.

    Cases C-6, C-9/90, [1991] ECR I-5357.

  49. 49.

    Case C-453/99, [2001] ECR I-6297.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Komninos 2002, 457; Monti 2002, 282; and, more generally, Jones 1999B.

  51. 51.

    Art. 7(2) Reg. 1/2003 confers standing for these purposes on ‘natural or legal persons who can show a legitimate interest’.

  52. 52.

    Case T-24/90, Automec v. Commission, [1992] ECR II-2223.

  53. 53.

    COM (2005) 672.

  54. 54.

    OJ 2004 C 101/43.

  55. 55.

    Art. 11(6) Reg. 1/2003.

  56. 56.

    Art. 16 Reg. 1/2003.

  57. 57.

    The landmark decision was Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, [1964] ECR 585. In the competition law field the best-known decision is Case 14/68, Walt Wilhelm, [1969] ECR 1, although, as mentioned in the text above, Reg. 1/2003 has now addressed some relevant outstanding issues, Cf. Whish 2003, pp. 75–77.

  58. 58.

    Art. 3(2) Reg. 1/2003.

  59. 59.

    Cf. Dannecker and Jansen 2004.

  60. 60.

    But see further below for different approaches to collective selling of broadcasting rights.

  61. 61.

    E.g., Case 322/81, Michelin v. Commission, [1983] ECR 3461. See also Whish 2003, Chs. 1 and 5; Bishop and Walker 2002, especially Chs. 3 and 4.

  62. 62.

    Commission Notice on market definition, OJ 1997 C 372/5.

  63. 63.

    Decision 2000/12/EC, OJ 2000 L 5/55. For comment, see Weatherill 2000A, 275.

  64. 64.

    Case 322/81, note 61 above.

  65. 65.

    Decision 89/205, OJ 1989 L 78/43, 4 CMLR (1989) 757.

  66. 66.

    Cases T-69, T-70, T-76/89, [1991] ECR II-485, 535, 575.

  67. 67.

    Joined Cases C-241/91P and C-242/91P, RTE and ITP v. Commission, [1995] ECR I-743.

  68. 68.

    Case C-7/97, [1998] ECR I-7791.

  69. 69.

    See in similar vein Case C-418/01, IMS Health, [2004] ECR I-5039.

  70. 70.

    Art. 3(2) Reg. 1/2003.

  71. 71.

    Case C-415/93, note 28 above.

  72. 72.

    See, e.g., Dubey 2000.

  73. 73.

    Relevant documents on the Commission's quest for ‘modernisation’ of the regulation of the sector may be accessed via http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/modernisation/index_en.htm.

  74. 74.

    On inelasticity of demand for major events see Comm. Dec. 2000/400, Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151/18 (annulled, but not on the point of market definition, in Cases T-185/00, et al. M6 and others v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805); Comm. Dec. 2000/12 1998 Football World Cup, OJ 2000 L 5/55.

  75. 75.

    E.g., in 1999 the UK competition authorities blocked a proposed merger between BskyB, a satellite broadcasting company, and Manchester United, a football club, on the basis that it would operate contrary to the public interest; Cm 4305, 1999. Among other factors it was thought that competition in the market for acquisition of broadcasting rights would have been restricted by BskyB's more intimate involvement with the supply-side and that the gulf between rich and poor football clubs would be widened. For comment, see Tassano 1999, 395; Harbord and Binmore 2000, 142.

  76. 76.

    E.g., in the UK the consequence of the blocking of the BskyB/Manchester United merger, supra note 75, has been the acquisition by media companies of minority but not insignificant stakes in football clubs; see Brown 2000.

  77. 77.

    ‘Sky retains Premiership title after £ 1.7 bn TV rights auction’, The Independent, Saturday 6 May 2006.

  78. 78.

    See generally, e.g., Morrow 2003; Hamil 2000; Blackshaw and Siekmann 2003.

  79. 79.

    Cf. Geradin 2005, 68.

  80. 80.

    Dec. 2000/12, note 63 above.

  81. 81.

    Cf. Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission, [2005] ECR II-000 (Art. 82 applicable in principle but no breach). An appeal against the CFI decision was dismissed in Case C-171/05P, Laurent Piau v. Commission, judgment of 23 February 2006.

  82. 82.

    Pending Case C-000/06, referred to the European Court by Tribunal de Commerce de Charleroi in May 2006. For background, see Weatherill 2005D, 3.

  83. 83.

    COMP 35.163, Notice published at OJ 2001 C 169/5.

  84. 84.

    Fixing the limits of the notion of the ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of determining the limits of the application of the Treaty competition rules is an awkward problem that extends far beyond sport: see, e.g., Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK, [2004] ECR I-2493; Case C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze, judgment of 10 January 2006.

  85. 85.

    Dec. 93/403 Eurovision, OJ 1993 L 179/23 granting exemption under (what is now) Art. 81(3) was annulled in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93 Métropole Télévision and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-649; and the subsequent exemption granted by the Commission in Dec. 2000/400 Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151/18 was annulled in Cases T-185/00 et al. M6 and others v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805. See further below.

  86. 86.

    Case 258/78, [1982] ECR 2015.

  87. 87.

    See, for exhaustive treatment, Whish 2003, Ch. 16. See also Subiotto and Graf 2003, 589.

  88. 88.

    Case 262/81, [1982] ECR 3381.

  89. 89.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-250/92 Gottrup Klim v. DLB, [1994] ECR I-5641; Cases T-374/94 et al. European Night Services v. Commission, [1998] ECR II-3141. For an account of the nuances in the relevant case law, see Whish 2003, pp. 106–131.

  90. 90.

    Case T-112/99, Métropole télévision (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, France Télécom v. Télévision française 1 SA (TF1), [2001] ECR II-2159.

  91. 91.

    Case T-328/03 O2 (Germany) GmbH v. Commission, judgment of 2 May 2006, Para. 71.

  92. 92.

    Case C-234/89, Delimitis, [1991] ECR I-935; Case C-306/96 Javico et al. v. Yves St Laurent Parfums, [1998] ECR I-1983; and case C-214/99 Neste Markkinoiniti Oy, [2000] ECR I-11121.

  93. 93.

    Although this is not to say that decision-making practice is completely internally consistent: cf. Subiotto and Graf 2003; Fleming 1999, 143.

  94. 94.

    Wachtmeister 1998.

  95. 95.

    Note 62 above.

  96. 96.

    Dec. 2003/778, OJ 2003 L 291/25, Para. 79. See further below.

  97. 97.

    IV/36.033, KNVB/Sport 7, OJ 1996 C 228/4.

  98. 98.

    COMP 35.163, Notice published at OJ 2001 C 169/5.

  99. 99.

    On inelasticity of demand for major sports events see Comm. Dec. 2000/400, Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151/18 (annulled, but not on the point of market definition, in Cases T-185/00 et al. M6 and others v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805); Comm. Dec. 2000/12 1998, Football World Cup, OJ 2000 L 5/55. In the case of films, cf. Case IV/36.237 TPS 1, OJ 1999 L 90/6.

  100. 100.

    Cf. Case 262/81, note 88 above.

  101. 101.

    Cf. Eurovision, note 85 above, and more fully below in connection with collective purchasing.

  102. 102.

    Note 94 above.

  103. 103.

    Case IV/M469 MSG Media Service, OJ 1994 L 364/1; COMP/38.287 Telenor/Canal + (2004).

  104. 104.

    Note 62 above.

  105. 105.

    OJ 1993 C 94/6.

  106. 106.

    COM (1999) 644 and/2. For comment see Weatherill 2000D, 282.

  107. 107.

    Cf. Case T-328/03, note 91 above, Paras. 109–116: the CFI was unconvinced by the Commission's preference to treat such matters in the light of Art. 81(3) instead of Art. 81(1) and annulled the Exemption Decision. See similarly Cases T-374/94, note 89 above. Embedded in these detailed disputes is a larger issue about the precise relationship between analysis conducted under Art. 81(1) and under Art. 81(3): for recent exploration, see Nazzini 2006, 497.

  108. 108.

    OJ 1999 L 336/21.

  109. 109.

    Art. 9 amplifies the method of calculation.

  110. 110.

    Taylor and Lewis 2002, 414, Para. B2.290.

  111. 111.

    OJ 2003 L 1/1.

  112. 112.

    As mentioned above, Reg. 1/2003 foresees a pattern of co-operation within the ‘network’ of European competition agencies designed to encourage consistent application of the law within the newly decentralised system: see Arts. 11–16 Reg. 1/2003 and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, OJ 2004 C 101/43.

  113. 113.

    For economic analysis, see, e.g., Quirk and Fort 1997; Dobson and Goddard 2001; Rosen and Sanderson 2001, F47; Buzzacchi, Szymanski and Valletti 2003, 167.

  114. 114.

    Cf. Cases C-51/96 & C-191/97, Deliège v. Ligue de Judo, [2000] ECR I-2549.

  115. 115.

    COMP 37.806 ENIC/UEFA, IP/02/942, 27 June 2002.

  116. 116.

    Cf. summary in Roth 2000, Para. 4–150; also Pons 2000 and Weatherill 2000C; Mortelmans 2001, 613. See also Parrish 2003, especially Ch. 5 on competition law, building an analysis on a separation between ‘a territory for sporting autonomy and a territory for legal intervention’ (p. 3).

  117. 117.

    Case C-309/99, J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, [2002] ECR I-1577.

  118. 118.

    The CFI's failure to appreciate this is the principal source of my criticism of Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, note 29 above. Para. 55 of the judgment is especially unfortunate.

  119. 119.

    A decision such as Case C-250/92, Gottrup Klim v. DLB, [1994] ECR I-5641 should therefore be seen as running in the same direction as Case C-309/99 Wouters, note 117 above. For an account of the nuances in the relevant case law see Whish 2003, pp. 106–131; cf. also Nazzini 2006. A-G Lenz's Opinion in Bosman carries traces of this approach, Case C-415/93, note 28 above, especially Paras. 262–276. Also relevant in insisting on a contextual appreciation of the scope of Art. 81(1) is Case C-67/96, Albany International BV, [1999] ECR I-5751 (especially Paras. 59–60). The Court accepts that a restriction of competition is inherent in collective agreements between organisations representing employers and workers, but is prepared to place the matter beyond the reach of Art. 81(1). The reason lies in the need to interpret the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole. The social policy objectives pursued by such agreements and recognised by the Treaty would be seriously undermined if Art. 81(1) caught such arrangements.

  120. 120.

    Cf. Beloff, Kerr and Demetriou 1999, pp. 134–6, 153–6; Brinckman and Vollebregt 1998, 281; Nitsche 2000, 208; Taylor and Lewis 2002, pp. 404–406. This aspect is also emphasised by Wachtmeister 1998.

  121. 121.

    Paras. 118–124 of Dec. 2003/778 Champions League, OJ 2003 L 291/25, considered more fully below.

  122. 122.

    The collectively sold package may be (and increasingly is) broken down into constituent units – live matches, recorded highlights, etc – but this does not affect the basic issue, which is the suppression of sales by individual clubs. Moreover, rights may be, but need not be, sold exclusively – exclusivity is a matter that is distinct from collectivity.

  123. 123.

    Cf. Cave and Crandall 2001, F4, especially at F18.

  124. 124.

    ‘Broadcasting of Sports Events and Competition Law’, note 94 above.

  125. 125.

    IP/01/1043, 20 July 2001.

  126. 126.

    ‘Background Note’, Memo 01/271, 20 July 2001.

  127. 127.

    IP/02/806, 3 June 2002; OJ 2002, C 196/3.

  128. 128.

    Dec. 2003/778, OJ 2003 L 291/25.

  129. 129.

    Dec. 2003/778, Paras. 125–131.

  130. 130.

    Note 85 above, and see more fully below on collective purchasing. The CFI annulled the Commission's Decisions in Eurovision but did not take issue with the identification of these economic benefits flowing from the arrangements.

  131. 131.

    On this aspect of Champions League in particular, see Petit 2004, 429, 436–437. See subsequently the Commission report of 21 September 2005 into the provision of sports content over third generation mobile networks, available via http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/others/sector_inquiries/new_media/3g/final_report.pdf.

  132. 132.

    Speech delivered in Barcelona, ‘Commercialising Sport: Understanding the TV Rights Debate’, 2 October 2003.

  133. 133.

    S31 Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschraenkungen as amended with effect from 1 January 1999.

  134. 134.

    Re the supply of services facilitating the broadcasting on television of Premier League football matches, [1999] UKCLR 258.

  135. 135.

    Cf. Szymanski 2000; also Spink and Morris 2000, pp. 165–196.

  136. 136.

    The Competition Act 1998 is the key statute.

  137. 137.

    Cf. note 59 above.

  138. 138.

    COMP/C.2/37.214, OJ 2005 L 134/46.

  139. 139.

    IP/05/62, 19 January 2005.

  140. 140.

    ‘Sky retains Premiership title after £ 1.7 bn TV rights auction’, The Independent, Saturday 6 May 2006.

  141. 141.

    E.g., ‘Sky and Brussels at war over Premiership rights’, The Observer, 11 September 2005 (Business Section, p. 1).

  142. 142.

    IP/06/356, 22 March 2006.

  143. 143.

    For criticism of the Commission's assumptions, see Harbord and Szymanski 2004, 117; Geey and James 2006.

  144. 144.

    Paras. 164–167 of the Decision, note 128 above.

  145. 145.

    COM (1999) 644 and/2. For comment, see Weatherill 2000D, 282.

  146. 146.

    Cf. Halgreen 2004; Weatherill 2000B.

  147. 147.

    Speech delivered in Brussels at a conference on ‘Governance in Sport’, 26 February 2001, available as Speech/01/84 via http://europa.eu.int/comm/sport/key_files/comp/a_comp_en.html.

  148. 148.

    Support for this approach is expressed by the Committee of the Regions, Opinion on the European Model of Sport, OJ 1999 C 374/56, Para. 3.8.

  149. 149.

    OJ 2004 C 101/97. See especially Para. 42. Cf. also Wachtmeister note 94 above who states that ‘Competition law is not the right instrument for achieving cultural or regulatory aims’ but also tentatively raises the same possibility in connection with solidarity as Commissioner Monti, note 147 above.

  150. 150.

    Cf. discussion of Case C-309/99, Wouters, note 117 above; and also Case C-67/96, Albany International BV, note 119 above.

  151. 151.

    For a summary of the unclear scope of ‘non-economic’ aspects to Art. 81(3) see Whish 2003, pp. 125–128; see also Odudu 2006, Ch. 7; Psychogiopoulou 2005, 838. Neither Commission nor Court has yet offered satisfactory explanation of the impact of Art. 151(4) EC on Art. 81 EC.

  152. 152.

    Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council, [2000] ECR I-8419, Tobacco Advertising.

  153. 153.

    Dec. 93/403 Eurovision, OJ 1993 L 179/23.

  154. 154.

    Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93, Métropole Télévision and Others v. Commission, [1996] ECR II-649.

  155. 155.

    Dec. 2000/400, Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151/18.

  156. 156.

    See Paras. 28–37, 106–110 of Dec. 2000/400, note 128 above.

  157. 157.

    Paras. 50–58 of Dec. 2000/400, note 128 above.

  158. 158.

    Cases T-185/00 et al. M6 and others v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805. For comment see Herold 2002, 1.

  159. 159.

    See in particular Para. 64 of the judgment in Case T-185/00 et al., note 158 above, citing the seminal Case 262/81, note 88 above.

  160. 160.

    Dec. 2003/778, note 128 above.

  161. 161.

    IP/01/583, 20 April 2001.

  162. 162.

    Comm. Dec. 2001/478, OJ 2001 L 171/12.

  163. 163.

    Paras. 49–61 of the Decision. The Commission will monitor change in market structure, particularly in the wake of the ‘Internet revolution’, Para. 56.

  164. 164.

    Para. 59.

  165. 165.

    OJ 1989 L 298/23, OJ 1997 L 202/60 respectively. See generally on this regime Jones 1999A, 299.

  166. 166.

    Ars. 47(2) and 55 (ex 57(2) and 66) EC.

  167. 167.

    Arts. 153(2), 152(1) EC. Cf. Case C-376/98 note 152 above; for discussion of the impact of this case on cultural aspects of harmonised laws see Katsirea 2003, 190.

  168. 168.

    See Craufurd Smith and Boettcher 2002, 107.

  169. 169.

    ‘Free’ television for these purposes means ‘broadcasting on a channel, either public or commercial, of programmes which are accessible to the public without payment in addition to the modes of funding of broadcasting that are widely prevailing in each Member State (such as licence fee and/or the basic tier subscription fee to a cable network’, Recital 22.

  170. 170.

    Third Report on the application of Directive 89/552, COM (2001) 9, p. 8.

  171. 171.

    They should be ‘outstanding events which are of interest to the general public in the European Union or in a given Member State or in an important component part of a given member State…’, Recital 21; Recital 18 refers non-exhaustively to the ‘Olympic games, the football World Cup and European football championship’.

  172. 172.

    The most recent consolidated list of measures may be found at OJ 2003 C 183/03, and includes measures notified by Italy, Germany, Austria, Ireland and the United Kingdom. This is, however, out-of-date. The Commission’s Fifth Report on the application of the Directive reveals that in 2004 Belgium notified measures and in 2005 France did so: COM (2006) 49, Para. 3.3. For a full list, see http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/implementation/events_list/index_en.htm.

  173. 173.

    The list was an ‘utter failure’, Halgreen 2004, p. 131.

  174. 174.

    Case T-33/01, judgment of 15 December 2005.

  175. 175.

    The Commission has brought an appeal before the Court on this point: Pending Case C-125/06P Commission v. Infront WM, OJ 2006 C 108/7.

  176. 176.

    This is discussed above: on inelasticity of demand for major events see Comm. Dec. 2000/400 Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151/18 (annulled, but not on the point of market definition, in Cases T-185/00 et al. M6 and others v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805); Comm. Dec. 2000/12 1998 Football World Cup, OJ 2000 L 5/55.

  177. 177.

    Case T-33/01, note 184 above.

  178. 178.

    Note 182 above.

  179. 179.

    Resolution on the broadcasting of sports events, OJ 1996 C 166/109.

  180. 180.

    OJ 2000 C 364/1.

  181. 181.

    Art. 52 EU Charter.

  182. 182.

    See generally, Craufurd Smith 1997.

  183. 183.

    See, e.g., with particular emphasis on the EU context, Arino 2004, 97.

  184. 184.

    Available via http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/modernisation/consultation_2003/index_en.htm.

  185. 185.

    Cf. more fully Craufurd Smith and Boettcher 2002.

  186. 186.

    E.g., Case C-260/89 ERT v. Dimotiki, [1991] ECR I-2925; Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungs- und Vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, [1997] ECR I-3689; Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria A No 276 (1993). See Wyatt 2000; Craufurd Smith 1997, especially Ch. 7.

  187. 187.

    Cf. Jones 1999A, 326–336.

  188. 188.

    1 WLR (2001) 1604.

  189. 189.

    COM (2002) 778, p. 10. The fifth – and most recent – Commission Report, note 172 above, is similarly anodyne.

  190. 190.

    Available via http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/modernisation/consultation_2003/index_en.htm. As one might expect, the BBC response to the Commission is warmly supportive of the House of Lords ruling.

  191. 191.

    See in particular the Helsinki Report, note 145 above.

  192. 192.

    Cases C-51/96 and 191/97, note 114 above, Paras. 41–42 of the judgment.

  193. 193.

    Case C-176/96, [2000] ECR I-2681, Paras. 32–33 of the judgment.

  194. 194.

    This dealt with at some length by Parrish 2003, especially in Ch. 2 and, with particular reference to the Amsterdam Declaration, e.g., at pp. 15–16, 19, 104, 176, 196; cf. also Halgreen 2004, pp. 56–64.

  195. 195.

    Cf. note 1 above.

  196. 196.

    Note 145 above.

  197. 197.

    I have made this argument in particular in Weatherill 2004B, p. 113–152. For general discussion, see Foster 2000; Parrish 2000, pp. 21–42, and Foster 2000, pp. 43–64; Weatherill 2003, 51. All the sources cited at note 31 above are relevant.

  198. 198.

    Note 128 above.

  199. 199.

    Case C-309/99 note 117 above. Strains of this approach are evident in A-G Lenz's Opinion in Bosman.

  200. 200.

    The Commission’s decision in ENIC/UEFA, note 115 above cites Wouters. For its invocation in relation to salary caps see Hornsby 2002, 142.

  201. 201.

    As in Champions League note 128 above and in Eurovision, note 85 above.

  202. 202.

    Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR I-4921.

References

  • Albors-Llorens (2002), Competition Policy and the shaping of the Single Market, in Barnard and Scott, eds., The Law of the Single European Market, Oxford, Hart Publishing, Ch. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arino (2004), Competition Law and Pluralism in European Digital Broadcasting: Addressing the Gaps. Communications and Strategies 54:97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barani (2005), The Role of the European Court of Justice as a Political Actor in the Integration Process: The Case of Sport Regulation after the Bosman Ruling. Journal of Contemporary European Research 1:42

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard (2000), EC Employment Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloff, Kerr and Demetriou (1999), Sports Law. Oxford, Hart Publishing, pp. 134–6, 153–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop and Walker (2002), The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, 2nd edn. Especially Chs. 3 and 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw and Siekmann (2003), eds., Sports Image Rights in Europe, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinckman and Vollebregt (1998), The Marketing of Sport and its Relation to EC Competition Law, ECLR, 281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown (2000), Sneaking in through the back door. Media company interests and dual ownership of clubs, in Hamil, Michie, Oughton and Warby, eds., Football in the Digital Age: whose game is it anyway, Edinburgh, Mainstream Publishing, Ch. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzacchi, Szymanski and Valletti (2003), Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome: open leagues, closed leagues and competitive balance. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 3:167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracciolo di Torella and Masselot (2004), Under construction: EU family law. EL Rev 29:32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cave and Crandall (2001), Sports Rights and the Broadcast Industry. The Economic Journal, 111:F4, especially at F18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper (2006) The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EC. JCMS 44:281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craufurd Smith (1997), Broadcasting Law and Fundamental Rights. Clarendon Press, Oxford, especially Ch. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craufurd Smith (2004), Community Intervention in the Cultural Field, in Craufurd Smith, ed., Culture and European Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, Ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craufurd Smith and Boettcher (2002), Football and Fundamental Rights: Regulating Access to Major Sporting Events on Television. European Public Law 8:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabscheck (2004), The Globe at their Feet: FIFA’s New Employment Rules. Culture, Sport and Society 7:69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannecker and Jansen (2004) Competition Law Sanctioning in the European Union, The Hague, Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood (2004) The Relationship between the Member States and the European Union/European Community. CML Rev 41:355

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies (2006), Subsidiarity: the wrong idea, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. CML Rev 43:63

    Google Scholar 

  • De Burca and De Witte (2002), The Delimitation of Powers between the EU and its Member States, in Arnull and Wincott, eds., Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press, Ch 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson and Goddard (2001), The Economics of Football, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drobnig, Snijders and Zippro, eds, (2006) Divergences of Property Law, an Obstacle to the Internal Market, Sellier, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drolet (2006), Extra Time: Are the New FIFA Transfer Rules Doomed? International Sports Law Journal 2006(1–2):66

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey (2000), La libre circulation des sportifs en Europe, Bern, Staempfli/Brussels, Bruylant

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan (2001), Constructing a European Market. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger and Stix-Hackl (2002), Sports and Competition Law: a Never-Ending Story? ECL Rev 23:81

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming (1999), Exclusive Rights to Broadcast Sporting Events in Europe. ECL Rev 20:143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster (2000), Can Sport be Regulated by Europe? An Analysis of Alternative Models, in Caiger and Gardiner, eds., Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 43–64, Ch. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geey and James (2006), The Premier League-European Commission Broadcasting Negotiations, 4 ESLJ, available via http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume4/number1.

  • Geradin (2005), Access to content by new media platforms: a review of the competition law problems. EL Rev 30:68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliams (2003), Modernisation: from policy to practice, 28 EL Rev., 451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield and Osborn (2000), eds., Law and Sport in Contemporary Society, London, Frank Cass Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, Kerber and Weatherill (2001) Party Autonomy and the Role of Information in the Internal Market. Berlin, de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam (2004), Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems. Virginia Law Rev 90:731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halgreen (2004), European Sports Law: a Comparative Analysis of the European and American Models of Sport. Copenhagen, Forlaget Thomson, pp. 56–64, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamil, Michie, Oughton and Warby, eds. (2000) Football in the Digital Age: whose game is it anyway. Edinburgh, Mainstream Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanf and Baumé (2003), Vers une Clarification de la Répartition des Compétences entre l’Union et ses Etats Membres. CDE 38:135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbord and Binmore (2000), Toeholds, takeovers and football. ECL Rev 21:142

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbord and Szymanski (2004) Football Trials. ECLR 117

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold (2002), Rules governing the acquisition by third parties of television rights for sporting events under Eurovision in breach of the European competition law’. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy 7:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervey and McHale (2004), Health Law and the European Union, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby (2002), The harder the cap, the softer the law? Sport and the Law Journal 10:142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans (2000), European Environmental Law. Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, especially Chs. I and III.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones (1999A), Television without Frontiers. YEL 19:299, 326–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones (1999B), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsirea (2003), Why the European broadcasting quota should be abolished. EL Rev 28:190

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenner (2003), EU Employment Law: From Rome to Amsterdam and Beyond. Oxford, Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieninger (1996) Securities in movable property within the Common Market. ERPL 4:41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komninos (2002) New prospects for private enforcement of EC competition law. CML Rev 39:457

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer (2001) Die Drei Dimensionen der Europäischen Kompetenzdebatte, WHI-Paper 2/02, (Walter Hallstein Institut, available via www.whi-berlin.de).

  • Meier (2005) The Rise of the Regulatory State in Sport, conference paper available via http://regulation.upf.edu/ecpr-05-papers/hemeier.pdf

  • Michel (2003), Le Défi de la Repartition des Compétences, CDE 38 :17

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti (2002), Anticompetitive agreements: the innocent party’s right to damages. EL Rev., 27:282

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow (2003), The People’s Game Football, Finance and Society, Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans (2001), Towards Convergence in the Application of the Rules on Free Movement and on Competition CML Rev 38:613

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazzini (2006), Article 81 EC between time present and time past: a normative critique of “restriction of competition” in EU law. CML Rev 43:497

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidis and Howse (2001), eds., The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press., especially Ch. 3 and 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche (2000), Collective Marketing of Broadcasting Rights in Europe. ECLR 208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu (2006), The Boundaries of EC Competition Law: the Scope of Article 81, Oxford University Press, Ch. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver (2005), Competition and Free Movement: Their Place in the Treaty, in Tridimas and Nebbia, eds., European Union Law for the 21st Century – rethinking the new legal order, Oxford, Hart Publishing, Ch. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish (2000), Reconciling Conflicting Approaches to Sport in the European Union, in Caiger and Gardiner, eds., Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish (2003), Sports law and policy in the European Union, Manchester University Press, especially in Ch. 2 and, with particular reference to the Amsterdam Declaration, e.g., at pp. 15–16, 19, 104, 176, 196, especially Ch. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit (2004) The Commission’s Contribution to the Emergence of 3G Mobile Communications: an Analysis of Some Decisions in the Field of Competition Law. ECLR 429, 436–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares Maduro (1999) Striking the elusive balance between economic freedom and social rights in the EU. In P. Alston, ed, The EU and Human Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Ch. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack (1994) Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European Community. Journal of Public Policy 14:95

    Google Scholar 

  • Pons (2000), Sports and European Competition Policy, in Hawk, ed., International Antitrust Law and Policy: Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute for 1999, Yonkers, New York, Juris Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psychogiopoulou (2005), EC competition law and cultural diversity: the case of the cinema, music and book publishing industries. EL Rev 30:838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk and Fort (1997), Pay Dirt: the Business of Professional Team Sports, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich and Micklitz (2003), Europäisches Verbraucherrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenhuber (2003), Europäisches Vertragsrecht, Berlin, de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen and Sanderson (2001). Labour Markets in Professional Sports. The Economic Journal, 111:F47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösler (2004), Europäisches Konsumentenvertragsrecht. Munich, CH Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth (2000), ed., Bellamy and Child’s European Community Law of Competition, 5th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, Para. 4–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutgers (2005), The Rule of Reason and Private law or the Limits to Harmonization, in A. Schrauwen, ed., Rule of reason: rethinking another classic of European Legal Doctrine, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, Ch. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott (1998), EC Environmental Law, Harlow, Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spink and Morris (2000), The battle for TV rights in professional football, in Caiger and Gardiner, eds., Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press 2000, pp. 165–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subiotto and Graf (2003), Analysis of the Principles applicable to the Review of Exclusive Broadcasting Licences under EC Competition Law. World Competition, 26(4):589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski (2000), Hearts, minds and the Restrictive Practices Court case, in Hamil, Michie, Oughton and Warby, eds., Football in the Digital Age: whose game is it anyway, Edinburgh, Mainstream Publishing, Ch. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassano (1999), Are Vertical Mergers Harmful? ECL Rev 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor and Lewis (2002), Sport: Law and Practice. Butterworths, pp. 404–406, p. 414, Para. B2.290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher (2001), Annotation. CML Rev 38:1519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert and Vermeersch (2006), Sport and the European Treaty: a Tale of Uneasy Bedfellows. EL Rev 31:821–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Venit (2003), Brave new world: The modernization and decentralization of enforcement under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. CML Rev 40:545

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy and Bast (2002), The European Union’s Vertical Order of Competences: the Current Law and Proposals for its Reform. CML Rev 39:227, especially pp. 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtmeister (1998), Broadcasting of Sports Events and Competition Law. Competition Policy Newsletter, Brussels, European Commission, number 2 (June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (1999), Consumer Policy. In Craig and De Burca, eds, The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2000A), 0033149875354: Fining the Organisers of the 1998 Football World Cup. ECL Rev 21:275

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2000B), Resisting the Pressures of Americanization: the influence of European Community Law on the “European Sport Model”. In Greenfield and Osborn, eds, Law and Sport in Contemporary Society, London, Frank Cass Publishing, pp. 155–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2000C), Sports under EC Competition Law and US Antitrust Law, in Hawk, ed., International Antitrust Law and Policy: Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute for 1999, Yonkers, New York, Juris Publishing, Ch. 6, pp. 75–92, and Ch. 8, pp. 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2000D), The Helsinki Report on Sport. EL Rev 25:282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2003), “Fair Play Please!”: Recent Developments in the Application of EC Law to Sport. CML Rev 40:51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2004A), Competence creep and competence control. YEL 23:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2004B), Sport as Culture in European Community Law, in Craufurd Smith, ed., Culture in European Union Law, Oxford University Press, pp. 113–152, Ch. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2005A), Anti-doping rules and EC Law. ECL Rev 26:416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2005B), Better Competence Monitoring. EL Rev 30:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2005C), EU Consumer Law and Policy, Cheltenham, Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill (2005D), Is the Pyramid Compatible with EC Law. International Sports Law Journal, 2005(3–4):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Whish (2003), Competition Law, 5th edn. London, Butterworths, pp. 75–77, pp. 106–131, pp. 125–128, pp. 168–174, Chs. 1 and 5, Chs. 7 and 8, Chs. 15 and 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt (2000), Freedom of Expression in the EU Legal Order and in EU Relations with third countries, in Beatson and Cripps, eds., Freedom of Information: Essays in Honour of DGT Williams, Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Young (2002), Protecting Member State Autonomy in the European Union: Some Cautionary Tales from American Federalism. NYUL Rev 77:1612

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Somerville College, Oxford, UK

    Stephen Weatherill

Authors
  1. Stephen Weatherill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Weatherill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weatherill, S. (2014). The Sale of Rights to Broadcast Sporting Events Under EC Law. In: European Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation