BEFORE
THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
CASE NO.61/2010
Date: 08.02. 2013
INFORMANT
Sh. Surinder Singh Barmi
OPPOSITE PARTY
Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI)
Order
1. This case was initiated on the basis of information filed by Sh. Surinder
Singh Barmi, a cricket fan from New Delhi against Board for Control of
Cricket in India (hereinafter “BCCI”) to the Competition Commission
of India (hereinafter “Commission”) under Section 19(1)(a) of The
Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter ”Act”) on November 02, 2010. The
Commission, upon examination of the facts of the information, passed
an order under Section 26(1), on December 09, 2010 recording its
opinion that there exists a prima facie case, and directed the Director
General (hereinafter “DG”) to investigate into the matter.
1.1 The DG submitted the investigation report on February 21, 2012. The
investigation report was sent to the parties seeking their response on
the same and further process of inquiry was undertaken in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and relevant regulations thereunder.
Full opportunity was given to both BCCI and the informant for perusal 2
of all relevant records and making their submissions, both in writing
and orally before the Commission.
2. Factual Background
2.1 The Opposite Party(OP), BCCI, is a society registered under Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 with the primary objectives as
stated in the Memorandum of Association (MoA) of controlling the
game of cricket in India, promoting the game in India, framing the
laws of cricket in India, selecting teams to represent India in Test
Matches, ODIs and Twenty 20 matches played in India or abroad. It is
a ‘full member’ of International Cricket Council (“ICC”)
2.2 A party related to the OP is ICC. ICC is the global governing body for
international cricket. It is responsible for administration of men’s and
women’s cricket including the management of playing conditions and
officials for Test Match and One Day International (ODI) Cricket and
the staging of international cricket events for men, women and juniors.
It has three categories of members viz. Full Members, Associate
Members and Affiliate Members.
2.3 Full Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country
recognised by the ICC, or nations associated for cricket purposes, or a
geographical area, from which representative teams are qualified to
play official Test matches (10 Members).
2.4 Associate Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country
recognised by the ICC, or countries associated for cricket purposes, or a
geographical area, which does not qualify as a Full Member, but where
cricket is firmly established and organised (36 Members).
2.5 Affiliate Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country
recognised by ICC, or countries associated for cricket purposes, or a
geographical area (which is not part of one of those already constituted
as a Full Member or Associate Member) where the ICC recognises that
cricket is played in accordance with the Laws of Cricket (60 Members).3
Allegations
2.6 The allegations levelled by the informant centre on the following three
dimensions of organization of Indian Premier League (IPL), a Twenty
20, professional cricket league tournament conducted by BCCI:
a. Irregularities in the grant of franchise rights for team ownership.
b. Irregularities in the grant of media rights for coverage of the
league.
c. Irregularities in the award of sponsorship rights and other local
contracts related to organization of IPL.
3. Summary of DG’s findings and submissions of the OP
3.1 The DG investigated the matter with respect to the following issues:
i. Whether the Act is applicable to BCCI or not? and whether BCCI
is an ‘enterprise’ as defined u/s 2(h) of the Act.
ii. What would be the relevant market in the said case?
iii. Whether BCCI has a dominant position in the relevant market as
determined?
iv. If so, whether BCCI has abused its dominant position in the
relevant market in contravention of the provisions of Section 4
of the Act?
3.2 In order to examine the issues framed above, questionnaires were sent
by DG to the various parties to the case viz. all the successful and
unsuccessful bidders for franchise rights of IPL Teams, Essel Sports
Private Ltd.(the promoters of Indian Cricket League), media companies
involved in bidding for media rights and other parties related to the
case. DG also examined the concerned representatives of parties on
oath and obtained their statements and perused all the documents
related to bidding for franchise or media rights for IPL.
3.3 After examination of the replies/documents etc. received from the
parties, the submissions of the Informant, DG analysed the various
issues.4
Applicability of Competition Act on BCCI
BCCI’s submissions
3.4 During the course of investigation, BCCI contended that it is a ‘not-forprofit’ society for the promotion of sport of cricket and its activities is
outside the purview of the Act, especially Section 3 and 4. It also
submitted that its commitments are neither driven by nor conditional
upon commercial considerations. The revenue obtained by BCCI is
ploughed back into the game of cricket.
3.5 BCCI also cited a decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting(MoI&B), Govt. of
India(GoI) and Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others
reported as (1995 2 SCC 161). The SC in that case held,
“…It must further be remembered that sporting organizations such as
BCCI/CAB in the present case, have not been established only to
organize the sports events or to broadcast or telecast them. The
organization of sports events is only a part of their various objects, as
pointed out earlier and even when they organize the events, they are
primarily to educate the sportsmen, to promote and popularize the
sports and also to inform and entertain the viewers. The organization
of such events involves huge costs. Whatever surplus is left after
defraying all the expenses is ploughed back by them in the organization
itself. It will be taking a deliberately distorted view of the right claimed
by such organizations to telecast the sporting event to call it an
assertion of a commercial right. Yet the MIB has chosen to advance
such contention which can only be described as most unfortunate. It is
needless to say that we are, in the circumstances, unable to accept the
argument. The Ministry or the Government as a whole should not
denigrate the sporting organizations such as BCCI/CAB by placing
them at par with business organizations sponsoring sporting events for
profit and the access claimed by them to telecasting as an assertion of
commercial interest”.
3.6 On the basis of aforesaid arguments and owing to the nature of its
activities, BCCI contended that it cannot be compared to a commercial
organization and it does not qualify to be an enterprise within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment