Beware the ambushes

If South Africa and other countries competing in World Cup sporting events do not scrutinise and meticulously research the rules surrounding ambush marketing, pay-TV landmark-rulings and the way in which commercial restrictions on advertising are imposed, their participation in events like the Pro20 Cricket World Cup and even the 2015 Rugby World Cup might be in jeopardy.

Recently, Der Spiegel reported that the European Court of Justice ruled that selling TV rights for soccer on a nation-by-nation basis is illegal.

Under current practice in Europe, national football leagues issue contracts licensing the broadcast of professional matches in individual European Union countries that prohibit them from marketing or airing those games in other EU countries.

But the court said the practice of selling rights territory by territory in Europe was "irreconcilable" with the aims of a single market.

The ruling means that in future football fans across Europe will have a choice, whether they subscribe to games of England's Premier league, Germany's Bundesliga or leagues from Spanish, Greek, Italian or other pay-TV services, thus creating greater competition.

The case made its way through the courts in a legal dispute between the Premier league and Karen Murphy. In 2007, she showed English football matches at her pub in Portsmouth using a decoder card for Greek pay-TV service Nova, which had the rights to broadcast the games only to its subscribers in Greece.

Satellite TV provider BSkyB, however, held the exclusive rights for broadcasts in Britain. By subscribing to the Greek TV service, Murphy managed to save around €6,000 a year.

The legal dispute lasted several years, but the European Court of Justice decision is final and cannot be appealed.

For pay-TV services and football leagues, the decision is a major blow given that national broadcasters will now be forced to compete with foreign services.

After the ruling, the price of shares in German pay-TV service Sky Deutschland fell by as much as 5%, with similar declines for BSkyB in Britain.

In addition, prices for television rights sold by football leagues are likely to drop, reported Der Spiegel.

RWC without the South?

At the end of September, New Zealand Rugby Union head Steve Tew threatened that the All Blacks could pull out of the 2015 Rugby World Cup because competing in the current event had led to a loss of more than 10,3 million pounds sterling.

Tew told The Guardian the deficit was a result of the International Rugby Board’s  strict rules on advertising during the World Cup, forcing the curtailment of regular test matches and Tri-Nations internationals and thus preventing teams from showcasing their regular sponsors.

The IRB were quick to issue a statement saying they were committed to negotiating with teams to address the financial issues.

"I think you'd have a pretty good idea of how the country would respond, they wouldn't be too happy about it," said New Zealand hooker Keven Mealamu.

"It would be devastating for us as rugby players to know we wouldn't be able to make it to the next World Cup."

After the statement by Tew, the three Sanzar partners, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, said in a joint statement they would walk out of and IRB meeting to discuss the timing of the 2015 World Cup in Auckland if the agenda is not extended to include the way money raised by the tournament is distributed, as well as the relaxation of commercial restrictions imposed on participating countries.

South Africa and Australia are standing behind the New Zealand Rugby Union and Tew, who said he feared it would not be able to afford to send the All Blacks to the 2015 World Cup in England because of the income it would forfeit.

"We are in this together," said John O'Neill, the Australian Rugby Union, chief executive.

"What Steve said was not, as has been reported, that New Zealand would boycott the next World Cup but that, as things stand, the loss of income for taking part would not be sustainable.

"The IRB meeting has been called to discuss whether 2015 should start in September or be put back a month.

“Our view is that we cannot talk about that in isolation but in tandem with the distribution and the relaxing of commercial restrictions. We have to address the financial consequences of participating in a World Cup." (The Guardian, 5^th October 2011).

"If change to the agenda is not agreed, the meeting will only last five minutes. The Rugby Football Union is anxious to get the timing sorted out because it wants to get on with hiring stadia, but another month will not make any difference.

“We are, after all, talking about the future of the World Cup. We are not being frivolous: this is a very serious matter which needs to be addressed quickly."

O'Neill said Wales, Ireland and Scotland shared Sanzar's concerns and called for an end to the north-south divide which has blighted the administration of the game in the professional era.

"No one is threatening to boycott the World Cup, but for the IRB chief executive [Mike Miller] to say any team is replaceable is nonsense. What would they do if New Zealand, South Africa and Australia were not there?

“I'm not sure you would be able to call it a World Cup, but that is a path no one wants to go down.

"We have to look at the way the unions run the IRB and whether we have the right administration.

“Should union representatives be assisted by independent directors? The game has been professional for 16 years, but much of the game's structure is a legacy of the amateur era.

“We need to move with the times. Is it right, for example, that the foundation unions all have two votes on the IRB but 42 countries under the Asia umbrella have one between them, just like Samoa, Fiji and Tonga?

"We have to think and act on a global, not a hemisphere, basis. There is no point in wasting our time talking about timing if we ignore issues which are making unions worry about whether they will be able to afford to take part in 2015."

The chief executive of the International Rugby Players Association, Rob Nichol, backed Sanzar's call for reform of the World Cup but said players and clubs had to be allowed to be part of the decision-making process.

"If the World Cup is moved back a month, clubs in Europe will lose their players who are taking part in the tournament for three months," he said.

"That raises the danger that teams from tier two and three countries see their players take up financial offers to opt out and play club rugby.

"Steve Tew was right: the financial model for the World Cup is not working and it cannot carry on as it is,” he told The Guardian.

If the Sanzar partners and the IRB come to an agreement, the world will see a continuation  of the magnificent Rugby World Cups that have been so well attended and have attracted a global audience of more than 4 billion viewers in 238 countries. (In 1987, only 300 million people in seventeen countries viewed the final between New Zealand and France).

But failure to act by the IRB and shortsightedness by England, might force the hands of the Southern Hemisphere countries to organize a parallel global showpiece.

Is it possible that we might see two versions of the same world championships, almost like the World Boxing Association and the World Boxing Council?

That would detract largely from the global appeal of the Webb Ellis Trophy and the Rugby World Cup.