DStv sports and film rights under fire

[Kevin Lancaster]

DStv exclusive sports, film rights under fire

The Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services has said he will push for the regulation of premium broadcasting content exclusivity in South Africa

 

[Beri]

Great.....

 

[Rocket-Boy]

i.e they are not getting a cut so they want to regulate it and get a cut from one of the new players.

 

[kianm]

Poke naspers where it hurts the most. But will it happen, that's another story

 

[ajules]

Hard to take anything they say seriously because next year someone else will be in their place...and then we start from scratch again and so the cycle repeats itself for another year.

 

[MKFrost]

About time they look into this but a little concerned about what they mean with 'regulate'....

 

[Space_Chief]

About time they look into this but a little concerned about what they mean with 'regulate'....

Make things easier for their partners in media?

 

[Wino]

Agree, the word REGULATE is a worry!

 

[Quantum Theory]

I'm just wondering... If they open it up, which other service is going to be able to afford these rights?

 

[Fuzzbox]

FFS is the feeding trough not big enough.
They should stay in the playpen and leave the bigboys to PLAY.
How would they compete anyway.
More tax rand's wasted like SCUMRAL, ESCUM, SABC and the list goes on
Forgot SAA

 

[JustAsk]

FFS people.

REGULATE like its been done in the rest of the sporting world...open up certain sport by declaring it a "protected sport event".
That's all.It doesn't matter what exclusive agreement dstv or whoever has, if that sport event falls into a certain protected category it has to be fta, and others delayed.

Protected event in other countries by law

AUSTRIA

Summer/Winter Olympics
Fifa World Cup (all Austria games, plus quarter-finals onwards)
European Championships (as above)
Austrian Cup final
FIS World Skiing Championships
Nordic Skiing Championships
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra's New Year Concert
Vienna Opera Ball

Austria is one of only two countries in Europe that includes cultural events among its list of protected events. Its New Year Concert is broadcast around the world to an estimated audience of one billion viewers. The national sport of Austria is alpine skiing, so the protected list includes the Winter Olympics and two international events.

FRANCE

Summer/Winter Olympics
All official games involving French national football team
Opening match and semi-finals and final of Fifa World Cup
European Championships semi-finals and final
Uefa Cup final (if involving French team)
Champions League final
French Cup final
Six Nations rugby
Rugby World Cup semi-final and final
French Rugby Cup final
French Open tennis finals
Davis Cup semi-finals and finals (involving France)
French Grand Prix
Tour de France
Paris – Roubaix cycling
Final of European & World Basketball championships and European & World handball (involving French team)
World Athletics Championships

France has more protected sporting events than many countries in Europe. Handball and basketball enjoy huge support, along with football and rugby union.

ITALY

Summer and Winter Olympics
World Cup final and all Italy matches
European Championships final and all Italy matches
Champions League semi-finals and final, Uefa Cup final (when involving Italian teams)
Tour of Italy cycling
Italian Grand Prix
San Remo Italian Music Festival

link

WIKI

Protected events

In the UK, the regulations set out in the Ofcom Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events dictate that some sporting events must have coverage made available to free-to-air channels. "Category A" events, including the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup and Cricket World Cup should be available live, while "Category B" events such as all test cricket played in England and the Commonwealth Games should be available as highlights or with a short delay.

A similar concept applies in Italy (law 8/99) and Australia (anti-siphoning law) to some important sport events.

In contrast, no law in the United States or Canada dictates that any given sporting event must broadcast over the air. In both countries, the general trend has been for the major leagues to slowly migrate their broadcasts to subscription channels, a process that has reached virtually every sport as broadcasts that historically have been free-to-air are now available only by subscription. Nevertheless, the National Football League has an internal policy requiring that its partners broadcast every game over the air, in the very least, in the visiting team's home market (and, if the game sells out, the home team's market as well), and the league's conference championships and league championship have always been carried on a terrestrial broadcaster.

FIFA went to court last year to get the world cup free from protected events in EUROPE...THEY LOST
LINK

Fifa and Uefa have lost an appeal against a European ruling that the World Cup and Euro Championships should be shown on free-to-air TV in the UK.

In 2011, the European General Court said the UK could keep the events on a list of "protected" events of national sporting interest broadcast for free.

It means the two tournaments cannot be sold exclusively to pay-TV firms.

Fifa and Uefa had appealed, after saying they could not sell the events fairly for their real value.

But the European Court of Justice - Europe's Supreme Court - has now said the original decision in the General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) in 2011 was correct.

Bring it on.

This is the reason other countrie can see the olympics for free...its a protected event in those countries.

 

[elvis_presley]

I'm just wondering... If they open it up, which other service is going to be able to afford these rights?

That's the problem. Some have advocated making certain sporting events free - that's fine and well for the big international events, but how many of our lower LSM users really care about the winter Olympics or Tour de France? If government tries to regulate PSL, something our local guys WOULD be interested in watching, it'd go bankrupt overnight.

Unless they've changed it, foreign ownership in a broadcaster is still capped at 20% ... is this still in place, and if so it's certainly no mystery why we haven't had a company with deep pockets that can take on DSTV.

DSTV's monopoly is safe not because of the exclusive deals they have in place, but because the government is protecting them through their inane previously disadvantaged rules with pretty much guarantee nobody will be able to take them on.

Trying a quick fix isn't going to work. We need to pass laws to make it more attractive for international competition to enter the market - some tax breaks, and relax the ownership rules. Just open up a gigantic money highway that makes it really simple for big international competitors to shovel money into warchests against DSTV. They're champing at the bit to get a piece of the emerging markets.

I want DSTV to feel the heat because there's someone better out there, not because government is trying to hack them off at the knees.

 

[ThinkCentre]

The right people just donate enough money in the correct bank account and this problem goes away! Done!

 

[Segg]

 

[LazyLion]

 

[dominic]

@JustAsk: good post

DSTV's monopoly is safe not because of the exclusive deals they have in place, but because the government is protecting them through their inane previously disadvantaged rules with pretty much guarantee nobody will be able to take them on.

Trying a quick fix isn't going to work. We need to pass laws to make it more attractive for international competition to enter the market - some tax breaks, and relax the ownership rules. Just open up a gigantic money highway that makes it really simple for big international competitors to shovel money into warchests against DSTV. They're champing at the bit to get a piece of the emerging markets.

I want DSTV to feel the heat because there's someone better out there, not because government is trying to hack them off at the knees.

agreed..the ironic vicious circle here is that they need ICASA to do the dirty work - which includes a long inquiry process and following a market definition and evaluation process under Chapter 10 - but they have so effectively hamstrung it that its chances of getting this right are minimal

so they may have recently amended chapter 10 of the ECA to make this theoretically possible, it remains hugely unlikely that it will happen (and refer the stick/bear picture above except that this bear is wide awake)

relaxing their position on IPTV might be more productive....

 

[Swa]

I'm just wondering... If they open it up, which other service is going to be able to afford these rights?

More than now with MC always being the highest exclusive bidder.

 

[jetlee]

DSTV's monopoly is safe not because of the exclusive deals they have in place, but because the government is protecting them through their inane previously disadvantaged rules with pretty much guarantee nobody will be able to take them on.

Trying a quick fix isn't going to work. We need to pass laws to make it more attractive for international competition to enter the market - some tax breaks, and relax the ownership rules. Just open up a gigantic money highway that makes it really simple for big international competitors to shovel money into warchests against DSTV. They're champing at the bit to get a piece of the emerging markets.

I want DSTV to feel the heat because there's someone better out there, not because government is trying to hack them off at the knees.

Not sure here ... IMHO Sports need DSTV, because they have the money to give, which allows professional sport players to be paid. If we all of a sudden "regulate" what this means realisticly, is that broadcasters pay what the can afford, often the same as "less" than what a huge money corp like DSTV wouldve given, becuase realisticly, if they need more money for rights, they charge more at the pump, and if people want it, they will pay, almost price irrelevant.

I 100% agree, that to get this right we need 3 or more BIG players with lots of cash to throw around, and as long as existing rights are coming to a close, healthy competition will sort out the rest, when rights are renegotiated.

 

[jetlee]

@JustAsk: good post



agreed..the ironic vicious circle here is that they need ICASA to do the dirty work - which includes a long inquiry process and following a market definition and evaluation process under Chapter 10 - but they have so effectively hamstrung it that its chances of getting this right are minimal

so they may have recently amended chapter 10 of the ECA to make this theoretically possible, it remains hugely unlikely that it will happen (and refer the stick/bear picture above except that this bear is wide awake)

relaxing their position on IPTV might be more productive....

I think you might be spot on here, IPTV is a much "greyer" area, and is ripe for some proper regulating, instead of across the board denial that it exists as a viable platform.

bring on Hulu / Netflix sports ..

 

[elvis_presley]

Not sure here ... IMHO Sports need DSTV, because they have the money to give, which allows professional sport players to be paid.

Local sports, yes - forcing them to be given away for free would be disastrous. Government "arts and crafts department" would probably end up footing the bill and us taxpayers would pay for it. International sports I'm OK with going with what the rest of the world does and give some for free, they'll be able to take the hit. SA isn't a make-or-break market for them.