The Future of Football Broadcasting

Today Advocate General Juliane Kokott gave her opinion in the case of Karen Murphy, a pub landlady, convicted of illegally showing live Premier League football in pub using foreign satellite equipment.

The case's importance? Potentially, the future of football broadcasting in Britain.

Currently, there are two exclusive broadcasters of live English Premier League football - Rupert Murdoch's Sky Sports, and the American owned ESPN. Both parties pay hundreds of millions of pounds per season for the right to be an exclusive provider. Being able to promote themselves in this manner is key to them both attracting the subscribers they need to secure such deals.

Subsequently, there are only two broadcasters because of an earlier set of legal proceedings in 2007, again involving Murdoch. After having held the monopoly over the broadcasting rights of the Premier League since it's introduction in 1992, Sky were told that they had to start sharing. But that's besides the point...

Whilst many households can afford to subscribe to Sky Sports to watch live football in the comfort of their own armchair, landlords and lady's alike often find it difficult to meet the inflated prices charged by the aforementioned broadcasters to show games in their pubs.

Many simply cancelled their subscriptions. However, others - most notably Karen Murphy - sought other means of continuing their broadcasts. Using satellite transmitters and decoders meant for the Greek market, Murphy was able to show the live games at a far lower cost.

 Whilst it is not illegal to subscribe to a foreign satellite broadcaster, nor the various transmission and decoding equipment used by Murphy, it is prohibited to show anything subject to a copyright agreement - such as that in place between Sky and ESPN and the Premier League - without any prior permission from those entitled to grant it.

Legal proceedings were brought against Murphy, the applicant citing an infringement of their intellectual property rights. Acting on behalf of the Premier League, the Media Protection Service claimed that by broadcasting live matches via a third party's satellite transmission Murphy was breaking the law.

It is here that the case becomes of interest to every football fan in the country - particularly those who themselves subscribe to either of the above broadcasters.

In her defence, Murphy heavily cited current European legislation. Her main argument was two-fold. Firstly, the broadcasting agreement in place prevented competition from other broadcasters, and secondly, it restricted the freedom of other broadcasters to provide a service. It was also suggested that the choice available to the everyday consumer was severely restricted, and therefore contrary to public policy.

The case is currently awaiting a final decision from the European Court of Justice, and it is because of this that the advice of an Advocate General has been sought. Whilst the opinion is not binding, it does have a significant standing and will be considered greatly by the powers that be.

If the opinion issued today is followed it could mean an ending to the exclusivity held by Sky and ESPN, and open the door for an influx of foreign broadcasters to sell their product to the British market.

From a consumers point of view a like minded final decision would be a bonus. Traditionally, the more competitive the market place is the cheaper the price of a product becomes.

However, such a decision may become hugely detrimental to the game itself. Currently, huge amounts of the revenue raised by the selling of the exclusive rights to broadcast football are distributed between all the teams in the League - lower down the standings, some clubs rely on such injections of cash in order to compete. The loss of such funding may have the knock on effect of preventing some clubs from buying the best talent.

Will diluting the market ultimately dilute the quality of the Premier League?

Only time will tell...