EU Court of Justice to Decide on Premier League TV Rights Today

[Rachel_Sandford]

Today the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg is set to decide whether or not the regional contracts to televise matches between Premier League and/or UEFA and broadcasters like BSkyB are lawful. Premier League currently receives 1.4 billion pounds from the sale of international broadcast rights, and just last August 2010 started a three-year 1.8 billion-pound U.K. television contract.

The case was partly caused by a recent U.K. dispute involving a pub owner, Karen Murphy, who faces a criminal lawsuit for having bought a decoder card that lets her show games from Greek TV at her Red, White and Blue Pub in Southsea, England. According to BSkyB, these cards are “illicit” because they are being used outside of their specified area.

Bringing the revenue issue to light, an adviser to the EU Court of Justice said in a non-binding opinion that Premier League's contracts are not lawful. Unfortunately for English football's governing body, the court tends to follow its advisers' opinions, which means they risk losing part of their revenue from exclusive television rights sold to broadcasters.

Danel Geey, lawyer at Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP in London said: “The biggest fallout is probably for the Premier League. Their 1.8 billion pounds contract, of which they're in the second year of three, could potentially be deemed illegal and have to be renegotiated... At the moment, the majority of the Premier League's European money comes from the U.K.,” continued Geey, saying that if the court does not rule in their favour, “it may not be they don't get as much money for their rights as they're getting at the moment.”

Apart from the Premier League, Geey believes that the UEFA Champions League may also be affected. The global broadcast rights for the competition is worth about €1.1 billion per year. Graham Shear, partner in the litigation department of Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP in London, believes that broadcasters may benefit from a ruling restricting regional contracts. “It could be used as a weapon by broadcasters for price negotiation,” said Shear. “It's in their interest to try and force down the price they're paying for those inherent rights, whilst protecting their own revenue.”

According to Paul Dixon, Murphy's lawyer, today's judgment will “determine the way in which broadcasting rights generally, not just live-football, are marketed in the EU for generations to come.”

There is still a chance that the EU court won't follow their adviser's opinion, said Geey. There are “very, very few sectors in the EU” where absolute territorial protection is permitted.



UEFA is the governing body of football's Champions League, while the Premier League is home to some of Europe's most successful football clubs, such as Liverpool and Manchester United.

 

[SeanCorky]

According to BBC Radio 5 Live, Karen Murphy has won her case!

 

[cdtronix]

hxtp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241

 

[I.LuV.ManUTd!]

Murphy won!

 

[Turok]

does this also mean,that every eu citizen can buy subsribtion,of every pay tv package,in each eu member state?

 

[Huevos]

does this also mean,that every eu citizen can buy subsribtion,of every pay tv package,in each eu member state?

No, it just means the EPL can't enforce territorial rights inside Europe. To whom, on the other hand, TV providers choose to sell their services is a completely different matter.

 

[Lazarus]

Members may prefer to continue the debate here http://www.satellites.co.uk/forums/...karen-murphy-ecj-judgement-due-delivered.html rather than in the Newshound domain.

 

[Vipersan]

Not a big footy fan myself ...
But it does give me a nice warm feeling inside to think the Aussie dictator has received a at least the semblance of a swift kick in the nutz
;)
Foot > Ball ...geddit...

 

[Analoguesat]

Already a thread running on this:

http://www.satellites.co.uk/forums/...karen-murphy-ecj-judgement-due-delivered.html

Please use this one or we are are going to get all sorts of duplication

This thread closed

A/S

 

[Rachel_Sandford]

In January 2007, pub owner Karen Murphy was found guilty of “dishonestly receiving BSkyB football coverage with intent to avoid proper payment” when she bought a Greek decoder box that would let her show Premier League matches for much less than buying rights from BSkyB. After having been forced to pay £8,000 in fines, she appealed to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claiming that her rights as an EU citizen were violated. After all, choosing to buy a foreign decoder meant she was taking advantage of her right to buy competitively priced goods.

After a six year battle, the ECJ gave their ruling yesterday, ultimately saying that Ms. Murphy is allowed to use the Greek decoder. This was the expected ruling by most since an Advocate General from the ECJ had already given her opinion, and the opinions of ECJ advisers are always good indicators of how the court will rule.

The opinion of the adviser was that fining Ms. Murphy breached the rights of EU citizens to enjoy free access to goods and services, and national laws in member states should not prohibit the import, sale, or use of decoder cards to access foreign broadcasts. With regard to BSkyB's argument that their intellectual property rights were breached, the adviser put forth the opinion that “using exclusive agreements to protect intellectual property rights cannot or should not be outweighed by the effect of restricting broadcasts along national lines.”

The court reviewed the law of Intellectual Property of the European Treaty, particularly Article 56 (“on the right to freedom of movement of services) and Article 101 (on the anti-competitive aspects of the exclusivity agreements) before passing their ruling. After having given their opinion, the case will go back to the High Court for a final ruling. However, it's pretty much been settled since it is very rare for the High Court to go against the ruling of the ECJ.



Repercussions


“Looks like a blow for the Premier League...and broadcasters Sky and ESPN,” said David Bond, BBC's sports editor.

The Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and broadcasters like BSkyB, which owns Sky Sports, and Disney, which owns ESPN, will be almost immediately affected by this ruling. First, the Premier League will have to re-structure its broadcasting rights packages while broadcasters will have to reconsider the amount of money they put into football coverage. Clubs, which get a percentage of what the League makes from license fees, will also be affected, especially in terms of how they operate.

The FAPL makes around around £130 million from mainland Europe and £1.4 billion from its overseas deals. BSkyB alone had paid over £1 billion last August 2009 in order to retain their exclusive rights until 2013, while Disney paid in the area of $150 million for a deal of their own.

“This is a case about the licensing arrangements of bodies like the Premier League. It will have implications for how rights are sold across Europe in future, which we are considering. As a broadcaster, it will remain our aim to secure high-quality content for our customers based on the rights available to us,” said a BSkyB spokesman.

More than just changing the face of English football, however, the ECJ's ruling may also affect other broadcasts, such as some television programmes and movies, which are also sold on a country-by-country basis.

As Toby Headdon, IP lawyer at Berwin Leighton Paisner had said:

“This is a clear statement from Europe that intellectual property rights cannot be relied upon to fragment the market and charge different prices in different EU countries for the same content. The decision looks set to change the licensing landscape in Europe, not just for football broadcasts but potentially for other content such as films and music. The Premier League and BSkyB will have to go back to the drawing board. BSkyB pays in excess of £1bn to broadcast lucrative sporting events such as Premier League matches and it is likely to face a significant challenge in recouping that cost from subscribers who can now take advantage of cheaper subscriptions to broadcasts available elsewhere in Europe. One possible outcome is that the Premier League will confine its licences to the most profitable countries but it is probably more likely that the different pricing structures currently in place in different countries will meet somewhere in the middle.”



Not Over Yet


Karen Murphy stated that she was relieved by the ECJ's ruling, and feels like she's won the round, having successfully “taken on” BSkyB and FAPL. However, there was a loophole in the ECJ's decision. While the court agreed that live matches are not protected by the copyright laws, other aspects of the broadcast are, particularly the “surrounding media,” such as the Premier League anthem, videos of highlights of recent matches, and graphics; all of which are work protected by copyright. This means that to show these aspects of the broadcast, the pub owner will need the permission of the Premier League.

How pubs will separate these aspects of the broadcast or whether or not it will be separated for them is yet to be seen. What is clear is that it may take a few years to work around this issue. Another issue pubs face is that going with a cheaper alternative may mean losing the English language commentary.



The ECJ joined Murphy's case with those against other publicans and two importers of foreign decoding services. The ruling revealed the challenges of free movement and separation of markets along national lines under the EU's laws.