Today the EU Court of Justice ruled in favour of Pub Landlady, Karen Murphy in her case against Sky TV regarding viewing restrictions on UK football.

She has been showing her punters UK matches, relayed by a Greek TV company at a subscription cost which is less than a quarter of that charged by SKY.

The decision has yet to be ratified by another EU court,but it seems very likely to go in her favour, if EU regulations regarding freedom of choise are to be observed.

Should it be confirmed as expected,then it could be the first good news for UK Pub trade in quite a long time and have possible far reaching effects.

I wonder if the same ruling could be applied to individual households ?

I heard the report on BBC so will be interested to hear how Sky report it.

Well, the case is actually between the FA and landylady....not Sky at all.

And they havnt ruled anything yet....its one opinion of an advocate (i think there are 8 advocates) put toward the final decision.

And as one person said today."The ECJ is there to enforce the law, not change it,". So it will take time to change the law to make it compaitable.

Of course they could say the sale of all cards is legal in all eu coutries...but then stick the chanels on tight spot beam satellites and limit their actual reception to specifi countries....then there is no worry about the sale of cards, which will be useless as the receiver wil not be able to pick up the signals!!!

And it could still backfire.

If the rights holders, like the Fa and movie studios, cannot sell their programmes on a exclusive country by country basis like they do now, then they will have to sell them to a single pan european broadcaster...so think Sky Europe...or Digital+Europe....so if you dislike rups now, then the EU laws could make you dislike him more, even if those laws and rules are trying to help things..so all pay TV and major sports events and programming help by one company for the whole of the EU.....

which would then be against the EUs own competition laws.....

doh!

Or you may need to subscribe to one comapny for football, another for rugby, andother for movies, and another or dramas....so you could need 4 or 5 subscriptions to 4 or 5 different companies for the same programems as you are getting now by just one provider!

Sky have reported it....and not very concerned as their, and other pay tv companies, share prices hardly moved at all...probably as todays news does not mean much, and yu will still have to wait until April for the fianl decision, then it goes to the UK courts, then there will be the legal challenges (its just the FA t the moment, what wil happen when the movie studios come into play!)....then they will have to find a fair way of selling the rights

Its not just BSkyB that is affected, it is ALL EU broadcasters and ALL rights holders and ALL programe makers....so the ruling may be in favour, but it will get messy trying to sort something out that fits that ruling....and ALL broadcast contracts will have to be renegotiated.

SKY/FA whatever,they are both operating hand in hand to maintain a virtual monopoly situation to rip the UK punters off.
Unlike the UK, most other EU countries, even the smaller ones,have a reasonable choice of providers and much fairer competition.
For todays verdict/opinion to be overuled would go against just about everything the EU is supposed to stand for, and seems highly unlikely according to the opinions I have listened to.
Hopefully punters will be able to buy cards from whatever EU country/service they choose, as should be their right.
The panEU company/monopoly you suggest would be highly unlikely to be allowed to happen, once again flying in the face of fair competition and what the EU is supposed to stand for.
Limiting signals within the boundaries of individual countries is not a practical proposition without a large percentage of the populations being unable to receive the service, and therefore a virtual non-starter.
If the various EU contracts were renegotiated, it's highly unlikely any of the others would get away with the sort of charges now applied by Sky.
I don't see the multiple provider suggestion being a serious or practical solution either.
Hopefully if the lady wins her case we may see more realistic SKY subscription levels which will be good news for most, but think about the poor players who may have to take a wage cut from say £200,000 per week down to £150,000 per week.
I mean how are those poor guys gonna make ends meet ?

Most countries only have one satellite provider anyway...Spain Digital+, France Digital+, - both of these are as a result of mergers between two./..just like in the Uk. And all these countries also have cable operators and terresrtial, just like the UK. So not too sure about all other countries have more options. SO you mayt find that in other countries the provders havre to merge in order to survive.....

Sure Italy have Sky Italia and Mediset...both battling it out.

There are many operators available to buy the rights....cable, terrestrial, and all the phone and internet companies..many choices in the UK, and some of those have exclusive rights that sky dont have.
They may be hand in hand,, but it is the FA trying to maximise revenue...and it just so happens that Sky, in the rights auctions, wins...this time with ESPN. Who knows, maybe Five will buy a package next time....
The rip off starts at the beginning of the chain....get the football prices and wages sorted out, then the auction rights can be dropped, then sub prices can drop. Doing it in reverse is not the way.

And thats why countries can opt in and opt out of various laws and treaties...otherwise all rules, taxes and money would be the same across europe....i thimnk there are more improtant things to sort out in becomeing a harmoneous EU than TV rights!

True, but then like I say, they may not be able to receive the signal, or they may not be allowed to broadcast English language programmes unless it is a UK card....Sky Italia and a few other boradcasters have removed their english commentary from their football broadcasts by the FA.

The whole point of the case is that the rights owners are not allowed to sell their wares on a country by country basis. They must be sold on a paneuopean basis. So either all EU broadcasters pay for all european rights and battle it out for subscribers from all countries, or the rights holders sell to only one broadcsater...the latter could bring in more money and be easier to administer.

FTA from the UK do it, as do many other countries. One satellite has a very strong "beam" just for Germand, another just for poland, and soon ireland terrestrial TV will have one just for ireland, all to limit the broadcasts.

But thats the way it could go...like the EU forced the fact that Sky could not have all UK premier league rights...so you have to pay for SKy and ESPN. Yeah....no monopoly, but you have to pay more for it....eh????



Also, note that if Sky ar forced to drop their subscription prices, then they will drop the amount they pay for rights, and so critically affecting the income to the FPL, many teams go bust, league deteriorates, foreign audiences lose interest and foreign providers no longer buy the rights.

The FaPL could sell their games at the same rates as they do in the UK making them pay the same rates as UK based companies, putting it out of reach for less affluent countries, or perhaps even not resell at all outside the UK.

Also, if pubs but in "foreign" cards, then they will have to pay the "business" subscription and not the "private" subscriptions...just like Sky UK have private and business subscriptions. So as the pubs will have to pay the official business rates, the differences between copuntyr packages may not be go great or appeling any more, as the savings may not be as big as using a domestic rate.

And all the movie studios profit drop, and all other UK TV producers profit drop...it will not just be football that will be afftected...

You can watch more-or-less anything free online these days anyway can't you?

Not if you are in Spain.

Lots of companies doing streaming of major sports events, incl.UK football for a next to nothing charge and some free.
However I see a number of them in the US have ended up in Court this last week, so I wonder if the rest of the World will follow ?

Cards are easily available to buy for any European satellite package you wish to view. There are ways of getting around the need for a "home" address just the same as some people living in Spain subscribe to Sky UK.

If you use a proxy you can

The FA make more money selling broadcasting rights worldwide than they do from Sky so they will continue to sell this product around the world. Accordingly you already have a choice of providers, nobody says you have to buy from Sky, I was watching live premiership football in UK 5 years ago on Art Sports, a subscription that cost me just £90 for the year. The only legal problem is with broadcasting games at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon which is illegal in Britain.

Not according to all the published figures :
Sky+ESPN for UK rights - £1.7billion
Rest of world - £1.4billion
for the 2010-13 seasons

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...a-1925462.html

Of course they will. Thats not under dispute.
What is under dispute is how rights to everything are sold country by country in Europe, and they suggest should hbe sold in ine to all Europe.

Remember the last time the EU interfered with UK football rights...saying SKy could not have all rights and must sell the to another, so instead of paying for football on just one broadcasters, you have SKy and ESPN - two subscription and costs more...how is that fair to consumers, as it made watching football more expensive!

I dont think it is illegal.
It is just something the FA want to do to try and keep attendances up at matches, especially at lower league matches. Although that arguement may not be too strong, as it does not seem to have an affetc on attendances in other EU countries where boadcsaters show all kickoffs....