.. ;WW.ECONOMICTIMES.COM BCCI: Caught Behin he cricke tboardhasviola tedcompet ition awwhenhanding out IPL'song -term TV, mobileand websit e rights MSHARMA p or t, an d p ar ti cu lar ly c ri cke t, ha s be - come big business inthe country. The rec nt inquiries initiated by the 'd of Control for Cricket in Iridia ICCI )a ga inst La lit Modi have brought se- j ou s f in an ci al i rr eg ul ar it ies , i nc lud in g li d-rigging in th e award of co ntracts dur- gprevious three Iridian Premier League )L ) seasons, to the fore. But the compet i- ton issues involved t ereinl have been Ive rlooked. The BCCI' s conduct of award- gcontracts, say,for broadcasting rights, ises serious competition issues. With an Iverarching competition watchdog, Com- etition Commis sio n of Iridia (CCI),in ac - ion, the time has come to bring the anti- ompe ti tive pr ac ti ces of the cash-rich lodytopublic notice. For the record, competition issues in ricket arose for the first time when the I CCI , b y ab usi ng i ts d om in an ce , r ef us ed 0 recognise Essel Sports-promoted Iri- l ia n Cr ic ket Lea gue ( ICL) an d, i ns tea d, lromoted it s own ' of fi ci al ' I rid ia n P re - ie r League (IPL) for Twenty-20 ma tche s. le issue never reached CCI as it was not linforce at that time and the MRTP Com- ission co uidnot go beyond investigation. lutthat is hi story. . The world over, competition in sport is l re gulated like that in othe r sectors of the economy. For instance, Sin).on Rottenberg, awell-knownUSeco nomist , in his pap er TheBaseball Players' LaborMarket states thatthe "eco nomi cs of professionalsports leagues couldbe analysed usi ng the same economicf ramework asforany oth er ind- ust ry' . SinceIri dianowha s amodern com- petit ion law,compet ition issue s in crick et ca rmot be al lowed to be overlooked any more. Letus fir st examine them in the con- text of the BCCI-spon soredofficial'IPL. ButbeforeIdwell on them,itmaybe aptto remove doubts on t he va st s co pe of the CompetitionAct, 2002. Sufficewould be to statet hatwhilet heBC Clma y ormaynot fit in the defi nitio n of a 'public authorit y' for the purp oses of applicability of th e RTI Act, which was the Competition Act, whichequally coversmost the state-con - trolled ent erp rises and run s on the basic premise of 'competitive neutrality'. Con- sequentl y,we have the CCI examining a complaint of ca rt el is at ion med by Re- lianc elrid ustri es, thelargest priv ate enter - pr ise,ag ai nst the three public sector oil market ing companie s. Hence, no enter- pri se inthe cou ntr y isnowpermit ted to in- dulge in any anti -competi ti ve business pr actice prohibited by the Compet it ion Act.Of cour se,the BCCIisnoexce ption .Iri thisbackdrop,le t us nowseeho wtheB CCI, per hap s out of ignorance , is continuin g with app are ntl y bla tant vio lat ion of the law byabusing its mono polis t posi tion. COMPETITION ISSUES LIKELY WITH IPL Wit hou t going into t he p as t d ee ds, t he wa y the awar d of contr acts in IPL have bee handled by the BCCI till now is likely to give rise to grave competition issues in times to come. Let us have at lavour of some of thes e issues . ~ Bid rigging: The alleg ation of rigging of bids by IPL bosses as well as collusion am on g bi dd er s, l ik e ca rt el s, i s th e mo st s e- r io us cr im e i n co mpe ti ti on l aw . Un de r t he Competition Act, '~y agreement which directly or indirectly results inbid ri gging o r c ol lus ive b id di ng sh al l be p re su me d to have an ap pr ec iabl e adverse ef fect on com- petition." The al legations .t ha t IPL bosses allegedly advised the Dhootsan dAdanis to ke ep t he ir b ids m od est ly a bo ve $ 30 0 mi l- lion or that IPL administration also alleg- . \ agen cyto cont rolthe orga nisat ion of crick~ ty of long er duration, of overthree years, et inthecountry,the BCCl isundo ubtedlya as granted by the BCCIand that too for a mon opo lis t pro vid er of. cricket-viewing wide r range of rights can defmitely re- servi ces forthe peop le of Iri diaand , hen ce, str ict compet ition.This isparti cularl y the an enterprise ina 'dominant position' un - ca seif thebroadca ste r tooisina dominant der the Co mp etition Act. Th e BC CIhas position. Th us , ifSonycanbeprovedtobe bee n 'selli ng'broa dca sti ngrights to its'ex- havingalargemarketsha re of viewership clusivepartners' for along time. in telecast of cri cke t mat che s in Iridia,be- Firstly, how these 'excluSivepar tners' sides BCCI,it willalso facethe charge of were selectedis shrouded in mystery.The abuse of its dominant posit ionfrom other compli ance wit h the Competition Act is competingTVch ann elssuchSTARSpo rts , nowmandatory for selection of anye xc lu- ESPNorTEN Sports,etc. sive'agent' orpart ne rforanyb usinesspur- ~ Mobile appl icati on rights: DCIMobile pose, i.e.,it has to be donebycomp et itive St udios,a division of DotComInfoway,in bidding process in a fair and transparent conj unctio n wi th Si gma Ve ntures of Sin- manner. Secondly,even if one ove rlo oks gapore,hasreporte dlyjointlyacqui red the this selec tionprocess of theBCCI ,the con- ri ghts to be the exclus ivemobile applica- centration of ri gh ts i n a f ew a ge nt s s er i- t io n pa rt ne r a nd r ight s ho lder for t he I PL ous ly hanlpers the pro spe cts of fai r pla y cri cketmat che s worldwidefor the lon gpe- and s erious competition i ssues arise. nod of the nex t eig ht years (mc lud ing the Nowlet us see what th e BCCIhas done. 2017season). Recently,they released the Theboardsoldfive-ye arc ontracts toESPN IPLT 20mo bilea ppli catio nsfo rthe iPhon e, STAR Spor ts (1995- 99 ) nd Pr asar Bh arati Nokia smartphone s and Bl ac kberry de - (1999-2004 ). hereafter, it soldthe rights on vi ces. Soon, these wi ll be ma de available a territorial ba si s and Nimbus Commun i- acrossallothermajormobi leplatf or ms in- catioDS'bought the ri ghts forIridiaforfive el uding the Andr oid, Wmdows Mo bile, years (2006-10), ESPN Palmaridothers. Thisisalsolikelytoraise STARSpo rts foroverseas similar exc lusivityissues. matches. for four years ~ Offzcial websiterights: The IPLhas re- (2005- 08 )and Zee Te levi- port:edl ynegotiated a cont ract wi th a Ca - sion for matches in neu- nadian company, Live Current Media tral venues for fiveyears Iric,torun and operate its portals and the (200 6-11).The broa dc ast minimum guarantee ha s been negoti at ed righ ts forIPLwer esoldex- at$5Qmilli onov erth elon gextended peri od clusi vely toWSG-Son y En- of the next10yea rs.Theofficialwebsi te of. tertainInent combine for the tournament is www.iplt20.com.This is 10 y ea rs re por te dl y for a ls o l ike ly t o r ai se s imi la r e xc lus ivi ty i s- $1.03 billion. Although sues as market foreclosure for new en- grant of e xc lus ive br oa d- tr ant si sa lmos ti nl mi ne nt . ." casting and telecasting .,~, '$' ..... ri gh ts isacommo n co mmercial practice in INTERNATIONALEXPERIE NCi thespor industry,itisimportantto cons id- The law on the subject is almost sett led in er the impact of such long-term agree- coUntries having a developed ju rispru - ments on competition in this market . Th e dence on competiti on issu es in sport. For BCCI'sgr antofexclusiverightsca nl eadt o instance, Ir i the EU,EC competition law anti-competitiveconsequ ences such as (i ) is no w applicable to economic activiti es creation of barriers fo r new entrants, (ii) generated bysport, particul ar ly af ter the drivin g out exi sti ng competito rs, and (ill) Mec ca- Med ina cas e(2004).rianother cas e,. foreclosure of competition by hi nd er ing UEFAcase(2OO1) , heEC commissio n orig- entry into themarket.Allthes e arespec ifi c inallyobjectedtothe joi nt sellingarran ge- violations of the CompetitionAct. . ments, which we re no ti fied in 1999,be- The grant of excl usivi tyforsuchlongduo causethe European Footb allOrg anisation ratio ns willf 6rec losur e competitio n on ac- (UEFA)sold all Chanlpions League TV count of the factthatatthe ti me of renego- rights inonepack agetoa sin glebr oad cas t- tiation at the end of the contract, the ero nan exc lus ive bas isf oru pto fou rye ars broadcaster with the exclusiverights will at a ti me . ASa result of the commission's b~ at an adva nt age in.compari son to the objections ,UEFAproposedanewjoint sell - - Compliance withhe Com~n Actls' mandatory forselecting anyexclusive 'agent'or partnerfor any business purpose ANIMISI Iri the US, broadcas ti ng issues in PoP\) sport are governed by 1:l\eSports Brc casting Rights Act, 1961. Co mpetition sues relating t() professional sport h a ri se n p ri mar il y m pr iV at e l it iga ti on der section 1 of t he S he rm an Ac t. Although there are some antitrust 'emptions - such as baseball, collec bargaining and poolin g of broadcasi rights - yet,conductnot covered by exempt ions re ma ins subj ect to thea tr us t laws, and is.typically analysed dertil e 'rule of reason'. ,,!J'}lus,'iU.tl1oughtheputcom~.maY-be d cUl t t 6b e p i- ed ici ed , on C fu 1s af el y sa y' the BCCI and its exclusive br,oadcas ma y so on ha ve q ue st io ns toanswer be t he CC I i n ca se a vi gi la nt v ie we r or a c peting br oa dcasting TV channe l or a sumer group decides to me a compll The C CI i s al so n ot l ik el y t o i gn or e t he tIed international law on the subj ec proactive CCI may also take up suo r. cognisance of such anti-competitive 1 ness agreements. . The interest in ma tch es w il l b e d et er mi ne d by the lev competition in the league. The prof es ! al sport leagues in the US have str ov erthe year s toensure 'parity' as theI a viewer iswillin topay isdirectlyre] tothe enjoymenthegetsfrom watchin