Predictably initial media reaction to yesterday’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) case involving Portsmouth publican Karen Murphy over simplified a complex set of issues. Indeed, the only certainty in this matter is that the winners will be the lawyers who will pocket substantial fees in subsequent litigation.
Predictably initial media reaction to yesterday’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) case involving Portsmouth publican Karen Murphy over simplified a complex set of issues. Indeed, the only certainty in this matter is that the winners will be the lawyers who will pocket substantial fees in subsequent litigation.
Of course, one could see the attractions in a David and Goliath story which pitted a comely mine host against the might of Sky and the Premier League, particularly when there might be a benefit for consumers if, that is, they like their football commentaries in Greek. It has been somewhat amusing today to see some bafflement and rowing back by the media.
The next step in what is likely to be a prolonged process will be a High Court hearing to interpret and implement the ECJ judgment. Even then, the final outcome may not be clear. However, let us try and see where the various interested parties stand.
First, Karen Murphy. It would appear that she was sensible enough to take out legal insurance when she first bought the Greek decoder which is how she has been able to fund the long legal battle. The Greek decoder has not been used since she was fined £8,000 five years ago. Pending a decision by the High Court, she can’t use it to use to show games to customers, only for her own private use.
Consumers now should be able to used a decoder card to watch live Premiership matches from anywhere in the EU. However, the price of a decoder card for domestic purposes is not that different in the UK from, say, Greece. There would be some hassle in getting hold of it and fans would have to put up with a commentary in a foreign language. However, they would be able to watch live games at 3 p.m. on Saturdays which has always been a concern of the football authorities. They may be unbundled from future rights offers.
The Sports Rights Owners Coalition which represents numerous rights holders including Fifa, Uefa and the Premier League argues that sports with a concentration of followers in specific markets might decide to stop broadcasting in other markets. This would result in reduced choice for consumers.
There may even be gains for Sky in the ruling. If it is not possible to deny people the right to use decoders in other member states, does this mean that they could find a way round present restrictions on selling their services in countries with big British expat populations such as Spain and France?
There will probably have to be some restructuring of the offer that the Premier League puts out for tender. However, it should be borne in mind that the continental European market provides only £350m out of global television rights income for the Premiership of £3.4bn. £2bn of that comes from the UK, but the Asian markets are more important than the European ones, particularly in terms of potential for future growth.