Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sublicensing Obligation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover New Media and Sport

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

  • 1344 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, several decisions imposing a sublicensing obligation with regard to sports broadcasting rights will be dealt with in more detail. First, the European Commission’s EBU/Eurovision system decision concerning joint buying agreements, more specifically competition restrictions resulting from the behaviour of buyers, will be analysed. Second, a closer look will be taken at the sublicensing obligation imposed in the German public broadcaster state aid case. The Flemish public broadcaster state aid case will also be touched upon. Just as in the previous chapter, the main question remains whether the new media landscape has had an impact on the way competition authorities deal with the public’s access to sports content when shaping the conditions for the sale, acquisition and exploitation of sports broadcasting rights.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy 2009, 17; FACTS 2001, 13.

  2. 2.

    See e.g.: Temple Lang 1997, 39; Schaub 2002, 8.

  3. 3.

    Wachtmeister 1998, 26; Subiotto and Graf 2004, 20; Tsiotsou 2006, 79.

  4. 4.

    Wachtmeister 1998, 27.

  5. 5.

    See e.g.: Ibid., 27; Toft 2003, 15.

  6. 6.

    van den Brink 2000, 118.

  7. 7.

    European Commission 1999.

  8. 8.

    Toft 2003, 12.

  9. 9.

    See e.g.: Wachtmeister 1998, 27; van den Brink 2000, 118.

  10. 10.

    Wachtmeister 1998, 27; van den Brink 2000, 118.

  11. 11.

    Temple Lang 1997, 39.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., 40–39; Wachtmeister 1998, 27.

  13. 13.

    Elspass and Kettner 2008, 132.

  14. 14.

    EBU/Eurovision System case, para 27.

  15. 15.

    EBU 2009.

  16. 16.

    EBU/Eurovision System case, para 26.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 47–49.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 50–52.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., para 48–49.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., para 50.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para 51.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 59.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., para 62 & 68.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 69–70.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 77; Nitsche 2001, 94.

  26. 26.

    The modified access scheme for non-members can be found in: EBU/Eurovision System case, para 36–40.

  27. 27.

    EBU/Eurovision System case, Article 1; Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 254.

  28. 28.

    Commission decision, 10 May Commission decision of 10 May 2000 (hereafter: Eurovision case), Annex I EBU non-members’ access to Eurovision sports programmes; Font Galarza 2000, 29.

  29. 29.

    EBU/Eurovision System case, para 5, 11, 19–20, 45, 60, 72, 74.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para 11.

  31. 31.

    Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 254.

  32. 32.

    EBU/Eurovision System case, para 19.

  33. 33.

    Ariño 2004b, 107.

  34. 34.

    Harrison and Woods 2007, 270–271.

  35. 35.

    Mark Meltz 1999, 116–117.

  36. 36.

    Townley 2010, 75.

  37. 37.

    Ariño 2004a, 158.

  38. 38.

    GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission (hereafter: Metropole television case—GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 11 July 1996), para 126.

  39. 39.

    See e.g.: Metropole television case, para 117; Faull and Nikpay 2007, 1507.

  40. 40.

    Metropole television case, para 114–124; Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 254.

  41. 41.

    Metropole television case, para 102.

  42. 42.

    Monti 2002, 1057.

  43. 43.

    Eurovision case.

  44. 44.

    Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 254–255.

  45. 45.

    Font Galarza 2000, 29; Eurovision case, Annex II Sublicensing rules relating to the exploitation of Eurovision rights on pay-TV channels.

  46. 46.

    Eurovision case, para 91.

  47. 47.

    GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission (hereafter: Metropole television case—GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 8 October 2002), para 86.

  48. 48.

    Eurovision case, para 28–37, 106–110; Eurovision case, Annex I EBU non-members’ access to Eurovision sports programmes; Eurovision case, Annex II Sublicensing rules relating to the exploitation of Eurovision rights on pay-TV channels.

  49. 49.

    Metropole television case—GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 8 October 2002, para 79 & 83; Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 255.

  50. 50.

    Metropole television case – GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 8 October 2002, para 79.

  51. 51.

    Hatton et al. 2007, 347.

  52. 52.

    Eurovision case, Annex I EBU non-members’ access to Eurovision sports programmes, para 1.1–1.2.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 1.3.

  54. 54.

    Metropole television case—GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 8 October 2002, para 71.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para 74.

  56. 56.

    Weatherill 2007, 319.

  57. 57.

    Elspass and Kettner 2008, 146.

  58. 58.

    Lefever and Van Rompuy 2009, 257.

  59. 59.

    European Commission 2007, 114.

  60. 60.

    Iosifidis and Smith 2011.

  61. 61.

    IOC 2009.

  62. 62.

    Donders 2010.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    See e.g.: Commission decision, 22 June Commission decision of 22 June 2006, para 121;German public broadcaster state aid case, para 242.

  65. 65.

    German public broadcaster state aid case, para 229–236; Commission decision, 22 February Commission decision of 22 February 2008, para 175–184.

  66. 66.

    Commission decision, 22 February Commission decision of 22 February 2008, para 60; Donders 2010.

  67. 67.

    Commission decision, 22 February Commission decision of 22 February 2008, para 57.

  68. 68.

    Frieda Saeys and Frédéric Antoine Saeys and Antoine 2007, 122.

  69. 69.

    Donders 2010.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Commission decision, 22 February Commission decision of 22 February 2008, para 111.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., 248; Donders 2010.

  73. 73.

    German public broadcaster state aid case, para 72 & 289.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., para 105 & 290.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., para 298.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., para 300.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 299 & 305.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 299.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para 301.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 301 & footnote 120.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., para 301.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 305.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 301.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., para 302–303.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., para 321.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 355.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para 396.

  88. 88.

    Rapid Press Releases 2007, MEMO/07/150.

  89. 89.

    European Commission 2009.

References

Legislation and Policy Documents European Union Communications

  • European Commission 2009. Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting. OJ C 257/1.

    Google Scholar 

Decisions

  • Commission decision of 11 June 1993 relating a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.150–EBU/Eurovision System). OJ L 179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission decision of 10 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC of the Treaty (Case IV/32.150–Eurovision), L151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission decision of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters, C 2/2004 (EX NN 170/2003). OJ (2008) L 49/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission State aid E 3/2005 (ex- CP 2/2003, CP 232/2002, CP 43/2003, CP 243/2004 and CP 195/2004) – Financing of public service broadcasters in Germany, 24 April 2007, C (2007) 1761 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission decision of 22 February 2008 on the public financing of public service broadcaster VRT, E 8/2006 (ex CP 110/2004 en CP 126/2004). http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2006/e008-06-nl.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2010.

Reports

Press releases

  • Rapid Press Releases (2007) State aid: Commission closes investigation regarding the financing regime for German public service broadcasters—frequently asked questions, 24 April 2007, MEMO/07/150

    Google Scholar 

Speeches

Miscellaneous

  • European Commission (1999) Preliminary guidelines on the application of the competition rules to sport (not published)

    Google Scholar 

Australia Miscellaneous

Responses to discussion papers

UK Consultations

Case law General Court

  • GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 11 July 1996, Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543.93 and T-546/93, ECR (1996) II-649

    Google Scholar 

  • GC, Metropole télévision SA and others v. Commission, 8 October 2002, Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00, ECR (2002) II-3805

    Google Scholar 

Doctrine

  • Ariño M (2004a) Digital War and Peace: Regulation and Competition in European Digital Broadcasting. Eur Public Law 10(1):135–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariño M (2004b) Competition Law and Pluralism in European Digital Broadcasting: Addressing the Gaps. Commun Strateg 54:97–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Donders K (2010) Under pressure? An analysis of the impact of European State aid policy on public service broadcasting. Marginalisation or revival as public service media?. PhD Thesis, Promotor: Prof. Dr. Caroline Pauwels, Brussel (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • EBU (2009) European Broadcasting Union (EBU)—Who we are and what we do. http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/CorpBrochure_2009_A4_tcm6-64731.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2010

  • Elspass M, Kettner M (2008) Article 81 EC. In: Castendyk O et al (eds) European media law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn, pp 123–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Faull J, Nikpay A (2007) The EC law of competition, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Font Galarza A (2000) The Commission’s assessment of the Eurovision system pursuant Article 81 EC. Compet Policy Newsletter 2:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Woods L (2007) European broadcasting law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hatton C et al (2007) Fair play: how competition authorities have regulated the sale of football media rights in Europe. ECLR 28(6):346–354

    Google Scholar 

  • IOC (2009) IOC Agrees European Broadcast Rights Contract for 2014 and 2016 Olympic Games, 18 February 2009. http://sochi2014.com/en/sochi-live/press-center/36723/. Accessed 21 August 2010

  • Iosifidis P, Smith P (2011) The European Television Rights Market: Balancing Culture and Commerce, Private Television Conference, Brussels, 28 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefever K, Van Rompuy B (2009) Ensuring Access to Sports Content: 10 Years of EU Intervention. Time to Celebrate? J Media Law 2:243–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltz M (1999) Hand it over: Eurovision, exclusive EU sports broadcasting rights, and the Article 85(3) exemption. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 23(105):105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti G (2002) Article 81 EC and public policy. Common Mark Rev 39:1057–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche I (2001) Broadcasting in the European Union: the role of public interest in competition analysis. TMC Asser instituut, ‘s-Gravenhage

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeys F, Antoine F (2007) Belgium. In: d’Haenens L, Saeys F (eds) Western broadcast models: structure, conduct, and performance. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 105–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaub A (2002) Sports and Competition: Broadcasting Rights of Sports events. 26 February 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/speeches/text/sp2002_008_en.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2010

  • Subiotto R, Graf T (2004) Licenses for new media rights under EC law on competition. Entertain Sports Lawyer 22(1):17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (1997). Media, Multimedia and European Community Antitrust Law. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp1997_070_en.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2010

  • Townley C (2010) Article 81 EC and public policy. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiotsou R (2006) The Effect of European Union Regulations on Marketing Practices: The Case of European Football Broadcasting Rights. J Euromarketing 15(1):75–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Brink J (2000) EC Competition law and the regulation of European football. Sports lawyers J 7:105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtmeister AM (1998) Broadcasting of sports events and competition law. Compet Policy Newsletter 2:18–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007) European Sports Law—collected papers. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT, KU Leuven, Sint-Michielsstraat 6, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Katrien Lefever

Authors
  1. Katrien Lefever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien Lefever .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lefever, K. (2012). Sublicensing Obligation. In: New Media and Sport. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-873-6_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation