1. - -..-
;WW.ECONOMICTIMES.COM
BCCI: aught
C Behind
hecricketboardhasviolatedcompetitionlawwhenhanding IPL's
out long-termTV,mobileandwebsiterights
MSHARMA
port, and particularly cricket, has be-
come big business in the country. The
recent inquiries initiated by the
'd of Control for Cricket in Iridia
ICCI)againstLalit Modi have brought se-
jous financial irregularities, including
lid-rigging in the award of contracts dur-
gprevious three Iridian Premier League
)L) seasons, to the fore. But the competi-
ton issues involved thereinl have been
Iverlooked. The BCCI's conduct of award-
g contracts, say, for broadcasting rights,
ises serious competition issues. With an
Iverarching competition watchdog, Com-
etition Commission of Iridia (CCI), in ac-
ion, the time has come to bring the anti-
ompetitive practices of the cash-rich
lodyto public notice.
For the record, competition issues in
ricket arose for the first time when the
ICCI, by abusing its dominance, refused
0 recognise Essel Sports-promoted Iri-
lian Cricket League (ICL) and, instead,
lromoted its own 'official' Iridian Pre-
ier League (IPL) for Twenty-20 matches.
le issue never reached CCI as it was not
linforce at that time and the MRTP Com-
ANIMISI
ission couidnotgo beyond investigation. .
lut that is history. . agency tocontrol the organisation of crick~ ty of longer duration, of over three years,
The world over, competition in sports is etinthecountry,theBCClisundoubtedlya as granted by the BCCIand that too for a
regulated like that in other sectors of the monopolist provider of. cricket-viewing wider range of rights can defmitely re-
economy. or instance, Sin).onRottenberg,
F services for the peopleof Iridia and, hence, strict competition.This is particularly the
a well-knownUS economist, in his paper
l an enterprise in a 'dominant position' un- caseif the broadcaster too is ina dominant
TheBaseballPlayers' Labor Market states der the Competition Act. The BCCI has position. Thus, if Sonycan be proved to be
that the "economics of professional sports been 'selling' broadcasting rights to its 'ex- having a large market share of viewership
leagues could be analysed using the same clusivepartners' for along time. in telecast of cricket matches in Iridia,be-
economicframework as for any other ind- Firstly, how these 'excluSive partners' sides BCCI,it will also face the charge of
ustry'. SinceIridia nowhas a modern com- were selected is shrouded in mystery.The abuse of its dominant position from other
petition law,competition issues in cricket compliance with the Competition Act is competingTVchannels such STARSports,
carmot be allowed to be overlooked any now mandatory for selection of anyexclu- ESPNorTEN Sports,etc.
more.Let us first examine them in the con- sive'agent' orpartnerforanybusinesspur- ~ Mobile application rights: DCI Mobile
text of the BCCI-sponsored'official' IPL. pose, i.e., it has to be done by competitive Studios, a division of DotComInfoway,in
Butbefore Idwellon them, it maybe apt to bidding process in a fair and transparent conjunction with Sigma Ventures of Sin-
remove doubts on the vast scope of the manner. Secondly,even if one overlooks gapore,hasreportedlyjointlyacquiredthe
Competition Act,2002.Sufficewould be to this selection process of the BCCI,the con- rights to be the exclusive mobile applica-
statethatwhiletheBCClmay ormaynotfit centration of rights in a few agents seri- tion partner and rights holder for the IPL
in the definition of a 'public authority' for ously hanlpers the prospects of fair play cricket matches worldwideforthelongpe-
the purposes of applicability of the RTI and serious competition issues arise. nod of the next eight years (mcludingthe
Act, which was the Competition Act, Now let us see what the BCCIhas done. 2017season). Recently,they released the
whichequally coversmost of the state-con- Theboard soldfive-yearcontracts to ESPN IPLT20mobileapplicationsforthe iPhone,
trolled enterprises and runs on the basic STARSports (1995-99) Prasar Bharati
and Nokia smartphones and Blackberry de-
premise of 'competitive neutrality'. Con- (1999-2004). Thereafter, it soldthe rights on vices. Soon, these will be made available
sequently, we have the CCI examining a a territorial basis and Nimbus Communi- across all other major mobileplatforms in-
complaint of cartelisation med by Re- catioDS'boughtthe rights for Iridia for five eluding the Android, Wmdows Mobile,
liancelridustries, the largest private enter-
prise, against the three public sector oil
marketing companies. Hence, no enter-
-
Compliance
years (2006-10), ESPN
STARSports for overseas
matches. for four years
Palm aridothers. This is alsolikely toraise
similar exclusivityissues.
~ Offzcialwebsiterights: The IPL has re-
Iri the US, broadcasting issues in PoP)
sport are governed by 1:leSports Brc
casting Rights Act, 1961. Competition
prise in the country isnowpermitted to in- with the (2005-08) nd Zee Televi-
a port:edlynegotiated a contract with a Ca- sues relating t() professional sport h
dulge in any anti-competitive business Com~n sion for matches in neu- nadian company, Live Current Media arisen primarily mpriVate litigation
practice prohibited by the Competition Actls' tral venues for five years Iric,to run and operate its portals and the der section 1of the Sherman Act.
Act.Of course,the BCCIisno exception.Iri mandatory (2006-11).The broadcast minimum guarantee has been negotiated Although there are some antitrust
this backdrop,let us nowseehowtheBCCI, forselecting rights forIPLweresoldex- at$5Qmillionoverthelongextendedperiod 'emptions - such as baseball, collec
perhaps out of ignorance, is continuing any exclusive clusivelytoWSG-Sony En- of the next 10years.The officialwebsite of. bargaining and pooling of broadcasi
with apparently blatant violation of the 'agent'or tertainInent combine for the tournament is www.iplt20.com.Thisis rights - yet,conductnot coveredby
lawby abusing its monopolist position. partnerfor 10 years reportedly for also likely to raise similar exclusivity is- exemptions remains subject to the a
any business $1.03 billion. Although sues as market foreclosure for new en- trust laws, and is.typically analysed
COMPETITION ISSUES LIKELY WITH IPL purpose grant of exclusive broad- trantsisalmostinlminent. ." der tile 'rule of reason'.
Without going into the past deeds, the way casting and telecasting .,~, '$' ..... ,,!J'}lus,'iU.tl1oughtheputcom~.maY-be d
the award of contracts in IPL have been rights is acommon commercial practice in INTERNATIONALEXPERIENCi cUlt t6be pi-edicied, one Cfu1safely say'
handled by the BCCI till now is likely to the sport industry,it isimportantto consid- The law on the subject is almost settled in the BCCI and its exclusive br,oadcas
give rise to grave competition issues in er the impact of such long-term agree- coUntries having a developed jurispru- may soon have questions to answer be
times to come. Let us have atlavour of some ments on competition in this market. The dence on competition issues in sport. For the CCI in case a vigilant viewer or a c
of these issues. BCCI'sgrantofexclusiverightscanleadto instance, Iri the EU, EC competition law peting broadcasting TV channel or a
~ Bid rigging: The allegation of rigging of anti-competitive consequences such as (i) is now applicable to economic activities sumer group decides to me a compll
bids by IPL bosses as well as collusion creation of barriers for new entrants, (ii) generated by sport, particularly after the The CCI is also not likely to ignore the
among bidders, like cartels, is the most se- driving out existing competitors, and (ill) Mecca-Medinacase(2004). Irianother case,. tIed international law on the subjec
rious crime in competition law. Under the foreclosure of competition by hindering UEFAcase(2OO1), theEC commission orig- proactive CCI may also take up suo r.
Competition Act, '~y agreement which entry intothe market. Allthese are specific inally objectedto the joint selling arrange- cognisance of such anti-competitive 1
directly or indirectly results in bid rigging violations of the CompetitionAct. . ments, which were notified in 1999,be- ness agreements. . The interest in
or collusive bidding shall be presumed to The grant of exclusivityfor such long duo cause the European FootballOrganisation matches will be determined by the lev
have an appreciable adverse effect on com- rations willf6reclosure competition on ac- (UEFA)sold all Chanlpions League TV competition in the league. The profes!
petition." The allegations .that IPL bosses count of the fact that at the time of renego- rights in one packageto a singlebroadcast- al sports leagues in the US have str
allegedly advised the DhootsandAdanis to tiation at the end of the contract, the eronanexclusivebasisforuptofouryears over the years to ensure 'parity' astheI
keep their bids modestly above $300 mil- broadcaster with the exclusive rights will at a time. ASa result of the commission's a viewer is willing to pay is directlyre]
lion or that IPL administration also alleg- b~ at an advantage in.comparison to the objections,UEFAproposedanewjoint sell- to theenjoymenthegetsfrom watchin
edly told the promoters of Kochi consorti- other players due to the massive revenues ing arrangement, operational from the game. Therefore, it is in the interest 0
umnottoputmorethan$300millionon
table are sufficient to provoke a complaint
to CCI under Section 3of the Act.
the it would have amassed during that long
.
2003-04football season, whereby UEFA league organisers and the BCCI to en
time. Therefore, it does not allow for a real agreed not to sell the rights to televise the an adequate level of competition thai
allocation of rights at the end of exclusivi- UEFAChampionsLeaguefor longer than a sustain demand and determine the :
~ Grant of exclusive broadcasting rights: ty.Yet,exclusivecontracts forasinglesport three-year duration. With these decisions, run viability of the league.
This is the most widely-known concern event or for one season in a given cham- the duration of any exclusivity in sports (Theauthor headscompetition lawpractic
and'directlyproves the allegation of abuse pionship would not normally. pose any coptracts has been limited to a period of VaishAssociates.Vzewsarepersonal.Hisa
of dominance by the BCC!. As the sole competition problem. However,exclusivi- threeyearsinEurope. ate Vaibhav Chouksecontributed tothean