If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

A couple of weeks ago, I had a few hours to kill at Heathrow while coming back from my India trip. After killing time at a restaurant over a lunch of pizza and coffee, I walked into a WHSmith in the Terminal four lounge and was browsing through their cricket section when I chanced upon Richie Benaud’s My Spin on Cricket. I picked it up and put it on my “to read in bed” list that I had begun as a (my only) New Year resolution.

I started on the book and during this past week, I read about the GOI’s latest ordinance forcing private broadcasters to share sports feeds with Doordarshan. I realized that their could be an Australian precedent, according to Benaud. And based on what I have read about it these past two days, it looks like the Aussie measure dates back to a time as recent as ‘04 early as 1992.

Here is what Benaud says -

As regards television it has always been a part of the Australian sporting landscape that certain events, if being shown live, will be on an anti siphoning list and restricted to free to air television which could be the Australian Broadcasting commission or commercial networks, but it is definitely not Pay Television.

Fewer than one in four households in Australia had access to Pay Television in 2004 and the aim of the anti siphoning legislation is to ensure that as many viewers as possible are able to access important events without having to pay.

So it appears that events like Wimbledon and the Ashes, not to mention some other events (full list here) have to be carried by free to air channels in Australia. However Benaud mentions that Australia’s Premier Media, formerly Fox Sports, exploited a loophole in the Australian government’s rules to buy the rights to the 2005 Ashes series in the UK itself, which were then were sold on to pay television.

While the shit’s already hitting the fan in India, my initial thought was gung ho, i.e. supporting this exercise, since I had already read Benaud’s brief description of this anti-siphoning law. But it appears that while it seems that the government and Das Munshi’s heart seem to be at the right place, the details just leave you with a bad taste. But the object of this post was to point out what happens in Australia.

Looking at the Australian scene, you see that the law puts the onus on the broadcasters. This is a excerpt from here (emphasis is mine).

The anti-siphoning list is not a list of sporting events reserved solely for free-to-air television. It does not compel free-to-air broadcasters to acquire the rights to listed events and does not guarantee them exclusive rights to such events, nor does it compel them to broadcast events to which they hold rights.

And that’s where the Australian model differs from India, where (from what I understand) a pay channel fights for the rights, buys it and hands feed in a platter to the government owned channel that broadcasts the feed with its own revenue generating ad feed.

Now the next excerpt makes the role of the pay channel more clear (in my eyes).

The right to broadcast listed events can be acquired by pay TV licensees if broadcast rights are held by commercial television licensees (who have the right to televise the event to more than 50 per cent of the Australian population) or by a national television broadcaster (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) or Special Broadcasting Services (SBS).

So, if this model was to be adopted for India, (feel free to correct me if you think my interpretation is flawed), the pay channels can acquire the rights only if Prasar Bharati (or any other free to air channel, if any in India) holds the rights.

But has it ever happened? I mean, the main grouse that everyone has with Prasar Bharati is that they sit on their asses and use “laws” to force the other broadcasters to hand them everything in a platter. And everyone agrees that this abject laziness has to stop and as as Jagadish points out, this new ordinance just seems to motivate the executives (if I can call them that) at Prasar Bharati to stay lazy.

It looks like the Australian government thought about the lack of motivation angle too and has tried to protect the pay channels from this occurence.

The Minister may delist an event from the anti-siphoning list (section 115 (2) of the Act). An event is also taken to be automatically delisted 2,016 hours (twelve weeks) before the start of the event unless the Minister publishes a declaration that the event continues to be listed (section 115 (1AA) of the Act), and 168 hours (1 week) after the start of the event. This delisting allows pay TV broadcasters to acquire the rights to the event (section 115 (1B) of the Act).

Subsection 115 (1AB) of the Act provides that the Minister cannot publish a declaration preventing automatic delisting under subsection 115 (1AA) unless the Minister is satisfied that “at least one commercial television broadcasting licensee or national broadcaster has not had a reasonable opportunity to acquire the right to televise the event concerned“.

So in Australia, 12 weeks before an event on the anti-siphoning list kicks off, the government automatically takes off the event from the list, giving pay channels to get the rights. This happens after the government checks to see if any of the free-to-air channels have expressed interest in broadcasting an event on the anti-siphoning list and have had reasonable opportunities to acquire the same.

However the bold text in that last excerpt is what confuses me just a bit, particular the mention of “reasonable opportunity”. Does reasonable opportunity means a chance to be part of the bidding process? Or does it involve being one of the final choices? Prasar Bharati could easily argue that the former is the right interpretation.

The actual text of the act gives the following examples of events that may cause the de-listing of events.

Example 1: The national broadcasters and commercial television broadcasting licensees have had a real opportunity to acquire the right to televise an event, but none of them has acquired the right within a reasonable time. The Minister is of the opinion that removing the event from the notice is likely to have the effect that the event will be televised to a greater extent than if it remained on the notice.

Example 2: A commercial television broadcasting licensee has acquired the right to televise an event, but has failed to televise the event or has televised only an unreasonably small proportion of the event. The Minister is of the opinion that removing that event, or another event, from the notice is likely to have the effect that the removed event will be televised to a greater extent than it would be if it remained on the notice.

As you see, these examples are not very helpful in interpreting the conditions for de-listing. They add another disputable phrase “real opportunity” into the mix. I shall try to find out more real life scenarios where de-listing happened, which will make it easier to understand how this works in Australia.

I don’t think it is logical to argue whether viewing cricket is an issue worthy of national debate. But I think this is a good instance of a case where the government seems to had its mind at the right place (i.e to increase the viewing base), though the details though leave much to be desired. So while this issue runs the risk of being painted as the Government regulation of economic activity, it is actually an issue of consumer rights protection.

Now I have to say a couple of things in conclusion. I think that Das Munshi’s track record with the AIFF has nothing to do with this ordinance. So I just wish anybody who talks about this issue leave India’s football/soccer blues out of the equation. That’s a completely different argument. And I do want to add that while cricket is probably the most affected (in terms of monetary value), it is pertinant to note that the ordinance, in both its versions that we have spoken about here, covers sporting events of national importance and not just cricket.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am and is filed under Cricket, India, TV.