Football fans could have watched representation matches via the pay-per-view system at lower rates if the holder of transmission rights and television broadcasters had not entered into a prohibited agreement. The President of UOKiK fined participants to the collusion with a fine exceeding in total PLN 5.6 mln. Two undertakings benefited from the leniency programme. Cosequently, one of them avoided the financial sanction, whereas the fine imposed on the other one was reduced

Broadcasts by the pay-per-view system offer viewers a possibility to watch specified contents upon additional payment, which is incurred regardless of the subscription fee. The boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, held in 1975, in the capital of the Philippines and known as Thrilla In Manila, was the first sports event transmitted this way. Polish fans faced the first extra charge in September, 2011 for following the boxing match between Tomasz Adamek and Witalij Kliczko. In September 2012, the first football matches via the pay-per-view system were broadcast in Poland – the 2014 World Cup qualifiactions featuring Montenegro vs. Poland (7.09) and Poland vs. Moldova (12.09).

Monitoring the market of trading rights to transmit sports events, UOKiK took into examination the agreements which Sportfive, the company authorising to broadcast matches, had concluded with 11 broadcasters, namely: UPC Polska (Warszawa), Cyfrowy Polsat (Warszawa), Vectra (Gdynia), Multimedia (Gdynia), Toya (Łódź), Inea (Poznań), Echostar Studio ZTS Tele 4 (Poznań), SGT (Gliwice), ZUA Antserwis (Piła), TK Antserwis (Wałcz) and Asta-net (Piła).

The antimonopoly proceedings in this case were instituted in November, 2012. The President of UOKiK was concerned about the clause stating that the price established by all operators could not be lower than PLN 20. The President of UOKiK discovered that the equal rate resulted from a prohibited agreement of undertakings, and had nothing to do with independent decisions made by each entity. Undertakings involved in broadcasting matches had agreed with Sportfive not only the minimum price for viewers to access matches broadcasts, but also the clause that no other entity would provide access to these transmissions at lower rates. It should be emphasised here that under the antimonopoly law, it is prohibited to enter into agreements aimed at fixing the minimum resale price of goods and services. In the free market economy, every entity should independently fix its rates based on its own economic account.

According to the data collected by the Office, Cyfrowy Polsat was the initiator of this agreement. The company made the draft agreement which Sportfive was signing with all broadcasters. Moreover, it determined the way of trading broadcasts: One change. A while ago from the Chairman. We are not selling package matches, but each at PLN 20, no discounts – stated the exemplary e-mail sent to Sportfive by a representative of Cyfrowy Polsat.

The results of these prohibited practices mainly affected consumers, who missed the opportunity to buy broadcasts at rates below the fixed PLN 20. The following message sent by one of broadcasters proves this fact: We think PLN 20 is the excessive price (PLN 12-15 would be more suitable), despite this we are likely to accept it.

It is worth noting that the case assessed by the President of UOKiK and contained in the decision does not refer to broadcasts of football representation matches via the pay-per-view system, but to fixing minimum service price by undertakings.  A request of payment for watching sports events does not infringe provisions of the Act on competition and consumer protection.

Sportfive, one of participants to the prohibited agreement, applied to UOKiK to refrain from financial sanctions under the leniency programme. Any party to a prohibited agreement which is the first to prove the existence of a cartel, was not the agreement’s initiator and ceased the unlawful practice, may even expect a full immunity from fine. The information submitted by the company, including the correspondence with other participants to the agreement, was previously unknown to the Office and significantly contributed to issuing of the decision. Multimedia was the second entity who submitted the leniency application and could expect decreasing the fine. The information gained from this undertaking, e.g. statements of employees who described the mechanism of functioning of this agreement, were useful when proving the existence of prohibited practices.

The partcipants to the agreement were imposed fines exceeding in total PLN 3.6 million. Under the leniency programme, the President of UOKiK resigned from imposing a fine on Sportfive and decided to decrease by 30 % the sanction against Multimedia.

This decision is not final and may be appealed against to the court.

Participants to prohibited agreements who intend to benefit from the leniency programme may submit a formal application personally at the premises of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Warsaw, to the employee of UOKiK for official record, by mail, fax or e-mail at: [SCODE]bGVuaWVuY3lAdW9raWsuZ292LnBs[ECODE]. Answers to all questions regarding the programme, even anonymous, are provided by UOKiK lawyers under phone number: +48 22 55 60 555.

Additional information for the media:
Małgorzata Cieloch, Spokesperson for UOKiK
Department of International Relations and Communication
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warszawa
Tel.: +48 22 827 28 92, 55 60 106, 55 60 314
Fax: +48 22 826 11 86
E-mail: [SCODE]bWFsZ29yemF0YS5jaWVsb2NoQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]

*Participants to the prohibited agreement were imposed the following financial sanctions:

• Cyfrowy Polsat – PLN 2 077 168.25
• UPC Polska – PLN 842 346.69
• Vectra – PLN 325 741.08
• Multimedia Polska – PLN 185 212.62  (sanction decreased by 30 % under the leniency programme)
• Inea – PLN 103 194.88
• Toya – PLN 78 720.22
• Asta-net – PLN 18 237.83
• Echostar Studio ZTS Tele 4 – PLN 3 518.60
• TK Antserwis (Wałcz) – PLN 3 120.63
• ZUA Antserwis (Piła) – PLN 3 008.39
• SGT – PLN 2 146.22
• Sportfive – immunity from fine (under the leniency programme)