A "Bosman" for TV Broadcast Rights?

February 4, 2011 9:09 AM

In 1995, the European Court of Justice famously intervened in the world of sports when it ruled on the Bosman Case, rendering transfer fees for out-of-contract football players illegal, changing the economics of the sport completely. 2011 will see the ECJ make a landmark decision on the future of sports broadcasting that "could ruin the economic model that has made Premier League clubs among the richest in world football."

Yesterday, Juliane Kokott, advocate-general at the European Court of Justice, issued an opinion (pdf) advising the European Court of Justice that Karen Murphy should be allowed to show live Premier League matches in her Southsea pub using a Greek decoder card rather than the encrypted service of BSkyB, which owns the UK rights.

On the back of the recent Sky Sports sexism scandal, the prospect of a blow to the dominance of Rupert Murdoch's Sky empire has been met with glee in newspaper articles and comments. But not so fast - broadcasters such as BSkyB and ESPN, are among the few probable bidders for a pan-European package. So, once again, the Premier League could play a central part in the expansion of Murdoch's media empire.

posted by Jakey (17 comments total)

I've seen a lot of pubs recently switching from Sky to other providers, such as Nova, or in some cases even Al Jazeera Sport. Really interesting decision.
posted by knapah at 9:11 AM on February 4, 2011

Would a post about the television distribution of The Sport Known To America As Soccer on the eve of American Football and American Television's Biggest Annual Event (which you're not allowed to call "Super Bowl" unless you have paid the NFL for the rights) be considered...

(a) An International Trolling Incident
(b) A Nelson "Ha ha"*
(c) Irony Alanis Wouldn't Understand
(d) Best. Sports. Post. Ever.
(e) All Of The Above

*as seen on FOX, an American network that owns the rights to broadcast The Big Game every third year, including this one, and which, like BSkyB, is part of Murdoch's media empire
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:32 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

(c) & (d)
posted by knapah at 9:45 AM on February 4, 2011

(f) Boring
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:47 AM on February 4, 2011

On the whole this is a good development but I do wonder how many of the pubs crying "free trade" in this case lobbied in favour of bans on the below cost sale of alcohol by supermarkets...
posted by nfg at 9:47 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

Anything that cuts the money (and power) of the Murdoch empire is just fine by me.

Although I expect to see David Cameron have lunch with Mrs Brooks and declare a change to media law to "fix" this shortly.
posted by rodgerd at 9:50 AM on February 4, 2011

Seinfeld taught me that even Americans don't care about the Superbowl.

Also, where are these supermarkets which sell alcohol below cost? Any in East London? Please provide full coordinates on the google maps, Ta.
posted by tigrefacile at 9:53 AM on February 4, 2011

In Britain, Super Bowl sounds like the marketing slogan of a lavatory company, or possibly the exclamation of Prince Harry after pulling on a bong of particularly fine skunk...
posted by protorp at 11:31 AM on February 4, 2011 [4 favorites]

The lock-in I would like to see with pubs and football is with the doors. A derby match is a chance to take all of a city's idiots out of circulation for a few hours.

I enjoy a good football match. Just not in public in England.
posted by srboisvert at 11:47 AM on February 4, 2011

Interesting.

If there is as much money at stake as they say though, won't the relevant broadcasters just get themselves a law passed allowing it and then carry on business as usual?
posted by madajb at 12:46 PM on February 4, 2011

American football is boring.

In other news, I hope Wolves smash Man United into the ground tomorrow evening.
posted by Put the kettle on at 4:22 PM on February 4, 2011

In other news, I hope Wolves smash Man United into the ground tomorrow evening.

I do too. I also hope for a giant pile of consequence-free cash to fall into my lap. Which of those is more likely, do you think?
posted by Errant at 4:56 PM on February 4, 2011

Errant, place a small bet on Wolves, they'll be equally likely...
posted by Dysk at 6:36 PM on February 4, 2011

won't the relevant broadcasters just get themselves a law passed allowing it and then carry on business as usual?

The EU has been pretty resistant to the idea of charging by territory; manufacturers of all sorts of stuff have lost court cases an EU rulings time and time again trying to prop up "rip-off Britain" pricing models when Poms have had the temerity to, e.g. nip across the Channel to buy identical good cheaply in France. I can't see why the EU would change that stance for TV rights.
posted by rodgerd at 1:29 AM on February 5, 2011

Hope Errant placed the bet...
posted by rodgerd at 11:27 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

In other news, I hope Wolves smash Man United into the ground tomorrow evening.

I WIN

You guys, seriously was today the best football Saturday ever or what? Stunning stuff. Everton won, Clint Dempsey scored, and Wolves of all teams were the ones to fuck up Man United's unbeaten run. Love this game.
posted by Put the kettle on at 5:13 PM on February 5, 2011

I found a bundle of consequence-free cash. Then I saw the Arsenal squander a four-goal lead and spent it on booze. Happy birthday, me.
posted by Errant at 1:41 AM on February 6, 2011