Premier League TV football choice 'upheld' by EU advice

DiamondGeezer

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
3,002
Reaction score
166
Location
Bangalore
Broadcasters cannot stop customers using cheaper foreign satellite TV equipment to watch Premier League football, an EU legal adviser has said.

A non-binding opinion from advocate Juliane Kokott of the European Court of Justice said a block breached EU laws.

Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy, fined for using Greek decoders, had argued the EU single market should let her use any European provider.

Sky and ESPN have the broadcast rights to Premier League football in the UK.

The satellite broadcaster has pumped billions into top flight English football since the league was founded in 1992, with the money given to clubs allowing them to buy some of the top names in the world.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will make a ruling on the matter later this year.

'Damage interests'

It also says it "would damage the interests of broadcasters and viewers of Premier League football across the EU"

TV money has helped bring top foreign names into English football
A spokesman added that if the advocate general's guidance was taken it would stop rights holders from marketing their properties in a way which meets the territorial and cultural demands of broadcasters.

They said they hoped the ECJ would uphold current European law, which the league said was "framed to help promote, celebrate and develop the cultural differences within the EU".

The Premier League also said that if European Commission wanted to create a pan-European licensing model for sports, film and music then it must go through the proper consultative and legislative processes, not use the courts.

'Contrary to EU law'

The case at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been about whether a rights holder such as the Premier League can license its content on a country-by-country basis.

Such a set-up has allowed the league to fully maximise the value of its rights.

Karen Murphy on why she took her fight to Europe, speaking in October 2010

Although Advocate General Kokott's opinion is not binding, judges usually follow the guidance from the advocate.

If they do, selling sport, movies, or any other content, on an exclusive territory-by-territory basis within the EU may no longer be possible.

"The exclusivity agreement relating to transmission of football matches are contrary to European Union law," she said in her opinion.

"(The) exclusivity rights in question have the effect of partitioning the internal market into quite separate national markets, something which constitutes a serious impairment of the freedom to provide services."

Fined

Ms Murphy had been convicted for using the cheaper Greek satellite receiver to show top flight football in her pub.

Continue reading the main story AnalysisTim Franks BBC Sports News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On one matter, the plaintiffs and the defence agree. Karen Murphy's case at the European Court of Justice could herald a revolution. And it would not just be football and Sky which would be caught in the turmoil. Intellectual property rights across the European Union could be changed forever.
For the first time, Saturday 3pm kick-offs would be widely available to watch on TV. A lure for many, certainly, but would it damage attendances at football grounds across the country?
There could also be immense implications for how we can consume music, books and film.
This is a point of permanent tension in the European project.
How far can you have a single European market without any boundaries to impede its smooth flow? And how far are national borders not an obstacle, but a protection?

She used the Nova firm to show matches in the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth as it was less expensive than Sky.

Enforcers working on behalf of Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL) - the private company which represents the broadcasting interests of the 20 English Premier League clubs - brought the prosecution saying only Sky TV had exclusive rights to show its games in the UK.

She had to pay nearly £8,000 in fines and costs.

Industry experts say satellite companies face having to reform - leading possibly to the creation of just a handful of pan-European broadcasters.

It was pressure from Brussels which forced the Premier League to offer its live matches to more then one broadcaster, rather then just renew the exclusive deals it traditionally had with Sky.

Packages were consequently taken up by Setanta, and when they went bust, by ESPN.



BBC News - Premier League TV football choice 'upheld' by EU advice
 
Last edited:
Industry experts say satellite companies face having to reform - leading possibly to the creation of just a handful of pan-European broadcasters.

Sly are still one step ahead though

Sly italia
Sly germany
Sly UK

and the other smaller broadcasts that they own spread across other satellites, theyre building all this for when they lose, as then they will already legally be in place to stop cross border transmissions 'in house' as they will already have a presence in each country :(
 
How is it possible to stop cross border transmissions "in house"? unless you have the details of the subscription card this is not possible. Sky aren't doing all the pushing as it's all down to the F.A. and the fact that they have had it so good for so long selling the rights to Sky UK at 2.2 Billion Pounds per year and all the other European Broadcasters at less than that. Sky are stupid to pay that much but they have to pay the F.A to keep their subscribers happy, it's a vicious circle. What about the Television Without Frontiers Directive (not heard of it? have a read here) as it makes for interesting reading and may open your eyes.This Directive was dreamed up in 1989 and I've been an avid follower of it for the past 15 years or so. It basically allows for free movement of Television content within the European Union. As I'm waiting for the day when you can legally subscribe to any European Broadcaster regardless of which country you are in, it's only down to the restrictions of that particular broadcaster and their own decision not to supply their channels to you. Here's some more interesting reading material that might raise an eyebrow or two.

Regards

Liam
 
Back
Top