Sport is an integral part of human life. Numerous sports events take place several times a year attracting mass attention and uniting people of different nations. Like any other sphere of human activity, sport is inevitably connected with the law. Law is present in every single aspect of human life this is why sport cannot be an exception from the rule of law. Unbelievable expansion of professional sport as well as the “fact that so many people now make a living from the sports industry, and a heightened community awareness of individual rights suggests that those involved in sport will increasingly turn to the courts to protect their interests.” (Healey 2005) Several decades have passed from the times when sportsmen were surprised on hearing that law could be applicable to their lives. These days they expect it to protect their rights and sometimes even abuse it for their own benefit. Such a wide application of law to the sporting life “continues to present a range of legal challenges for sporting organizations, athletes and promoters, and a variety of ideological and emotional challenges for many fans.” (Healey 2005) One of such legal challenges was the UEFA legal case to the European Union which consisted in annulling “the UK’s listing of the entire European football championship as a free-to-air event.” (Wilson 2008) This resulted in an inability of terrestrial TV to broadcast the final and opening games in the UK. Such a decision caused resentment and dissatisfaction on the part of fans and sports channels that got used to free-to-air broadcasting of the football games. The football body claims that the UK’s listing violates some of their rights and has a negative impact on the competition on the corresponding market; the UK is absolutely against canceling the live broadcasting of sports events on free-to-air television and has a firm intention to resists any challenge to the listed events.
What should be mentioned above all is that football bodies keep to the point that the list compiled by the UK infringes some of the rights of the applicants. In general, Member States are entitled by the European Union’s Television Frontiers Directive to compile the lists of the events which, according to their point of view, are of the greatest importance and interest for the society. “Listed events legislation could be said to be a media version of ‘sport for all policy, i.e. ‘TV sports spectatorship for all’ – a version of the cultural rights of national citizenship.” (Roche 2000) In 1998, the number of these events in Britain was increased by the New Labour government and included “the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, the English FA (soccer) Cup Final, England Cricket Test Matches in the UK, the Derby, The Grand national, the Olympic Games, and the FIFA World Cup (soccer) championships.” (Roche 2000) According to the existing rules, this list “gives free-to-air broadcasters the first option to purchase the rights to these events and sports.” (Nicholson 2006) However, UEFA disagrees with the fact that sporting events should be broadcasted free-to-air claiming about the infringement of the property rights of the applicants, “as it results in the restriction of how the applicant may market the television rights to the Euro.” (Wilson 2008) The British list of the “crown jewel” sporting events consists predominantly of the events of national importance, and these events were guaranteed to be broadcasted by the terrestrial television. The European Commission approved the list of the sporting events submitted by the UK and, even after facing the legal challenges on the part of UEFA and FIFA, it does not admit that any violation of the rights of the applicants took place because of the free-to-air broadcasting of the sporting events.
As far as other claims of the UEFA are concerned, it believes that free-to-air broadcasting creates unfavorable conditions for competition on the market of sports channels. The football body believes that “the entire tournament on free-to-air in the UK leads to a disproportionate and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant market” (Wilson 2009) This claim cannot be considered ungrounded because according to Article 3 of the EC Treaty “the activities of the community should include the establishment of a system ensuring that competition in the Single Market is not distorted.” (Parish 2003) Nevertheless, it is believed that this concern with the market competition is not what indeed bothers the UEFA. It is simply another excuse in trying to prove that the games should not be broadcasted free-to-air. UEFA itself challenged the decision of the European Commission regarding the US list of events which was approved. UEFA believes that matches involving Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales cannot be regarded as events of national importance. The list consists of 64 matches some of which, according to UEFA and FIFA statements, infringe the competition law because the UK uses premium sports broadcasting to strengthen its market positions on the European football broadcasting market. For instance, for some TV channels, broadcasting premium sporting events gives exclusive rights to maximize the attracted audience. “It is clear that pay-TV companies, such as BSkyB, can only attract subscribers, who always have the option of free-to-air television, by offering a unique and attractive product.” (Caiger, Gardiner, Anglia Polytechnic University International Sports Law Centre, & Anglia Sports Law Research Centre 2000) This means that broadcasting of the major sporting events free-to-air will give these exclusive rights to free channels which would attract more attention than the paid ones. This, according to the UEFA, will distort the competition and let free TV channels strengthen their positions at the broadcasting markets while the paid channels will have to lag.
Finally, the UK government recognizes that the list has a certain effect on the market for sports rights but still considers that UEFA’s demand to cancel the list was ungrounded. The UK does not ignore the fact “that the listed events regime represents a significant intervention in the market for sports rights” (Wilson 2008) but it has the right to demand free-to-air broadcasting under the Broadcasting Services Act of 1994. According to this act, free-to-air networks first get access “to the TV rights to this [major sporting] events. Should the free-to-air broadcasters decide not to acquire the rights offered, they are not compelled to do so. The broadcasters can simply decide to forgo those rights.” (Stewart & Smith 2004) Therefore, free-to-air broadcasting should be guaranteed to the UK people and can be canceled only if free-to-air broadcasters refuse to transmit the games. The European Championship Finals tournaments can be regarded as the events of major importance to the UK society because they have “a special general resonance in the UK in its entirety and it is particularly popular with the general public and not just those who usually follow sports events.” (Wilson 2008) Both UEFA and UK government have strong arguments regarding the annulment of the UK list. UEFA wonders why all of the games are supposed to be broadcasted free-to-air in the UK when neither England nor any other home nation managed to qualify for the championship; the UK, in its turn, argues that football tournaments have always been of great social significance in the UK and, besides, the list was submitted far before the qualification finals in which England, as a rule, successfully qualifies. The UEFA grounds seem to be too weak to annul the UK’s list; moreover, the consequences this annulment is going to entail are rather severe. The Broadcasting Act guarantees free-to-air broadcasting of major sporting events and UEFA goes against the law when demanding to cancel the list.
Taking into consideration everything mentioned above, it can be concluded that the legal case laid out to the EU by UEFA was ungrounded and unfair to the United Kingdom. The demand of UEFA to cancel the UK’s list evoked resentment in the UK government as well as in sports fans some of who lost the chance of watching the championship live. The UEFA legal case was based on the assumption that the UK’s list infringed the property rights of the applicants and created unfair competition on the relevant market. According to the UEFA, the list was aimed at helping the unsuccessful broadcasting companies to strengthen their positions on the European broadcasting market.
Bibliography
Caiger, A, Gardiner, A, Anglia Polytechnic University International Sports Law Centre, & Anglia Sports Law Research Centre 2000, Professional Sport in the European Union: Regulation and Re-regulation, Cambridge University Press.
Healey, D 2005, Sport and the law, UNSW Press.
Nicholson, M 2006, Sport and the media: managing the nexus, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Parrish, R 2000, Sports law and policy in the European Union, Manchester University Press.
Roche, M 2000, Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture, Routledge.
Stewart, B & Smith, A 2004, Australian sport–better by design? The evolution of Australian sport policy, Routledge.
Wilson B 2008, Uefa eyes change to free TV football, BBC News Channel. Web.