Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.173 — Joint selling of the media rights to the FA Premier League (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21 )
Date: 2006-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, audit, broadcasting, competition law, exclusive distribution agreement, professional sport, report, sale, sporting event, sports body

C 7/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.173 — Joint selling of the media rights to the
FA Premier League

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of
reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 7/09)

The draft decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
relates to the selling of media rights to the football matches of the English Premier League. The media rights
are sold by the Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) on behalf of the clubs which are members of
the Premier League.

On 23 June 2001, the Commission opened an own initiative investigation into the FAPL's joint selling of
the media rights of Premier League matches. On 21 June 2002, the FAPL notified in accordance with Arti-
cles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 17/62, the applicable law at the time, parts of its rules and regulations
concerning the joint selling of the media rights to the Premier League with a view to obtaining a negative
clearance or, failing this, an individual exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

In its Statement of Objections addressed to the FAPL on 17 December 2002, the Commission raised
concerns as to the compatibility of the horizontal joint selling arrangements put in place by the football
clubs in the Premier League with Article 81(1) of EC Treaty and concluded that the arrangements did not
fulfil the criteria set out in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

For the purposes of the present decision, this Statement of Objections is now considered to constitute a
preliminary assessment in the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

On 18 March 2003, the FAPL submitted a formal reply to the Statement of Objections, denying that the
arrangements restricted competition. They waived their right to an oral hearing. A number of third parties
were admitted to the procedure having demonstrated a sufficient interest. Ensuing discussions with the
Commission services led the FAPL to submit a provisional set of commitments by December 2003.

On 30 April 2004, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, pursuant
to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62, inviting interested companies to transmit their potential observa-
tions on this notification. In response to this invitation, a number of observations were received, which
mainly did not confirm the effectiveness of the commitments proposed by FAPL.

As a result of the applicability as from 1 May 2004 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the application made by
FAPL lapsed in accordance with Article 34 of this regulation but the procedural steps already taken
continued to develop their effects for the purpose of applying Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Following the third party comments on the Notice issued pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62,
further discussions between the Commission and the FAPL led to the submission of a revised set of
proposed commitments in November 2005.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by the FAPL
in response to the Statement of Objections and as later amended to take account of the relevant observa-
tions by third companies, and without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, there are no
longer grounds for action.

In a Decision under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, a breach of the competition rules is not estab-
lished, but the Parties accept to remedy the concerns expressed by the Commission in a preliminary assess-
ment. There is in this process a willingness on both sides to simplify the administrative and legal require-
ments which are inherent in a full investigation of a suspected infringement. This is the reason why in
several Decisions taken already by the College (1), it has been accepted that due process is satisfied when the
Parties inform the Commission that they have received sufficient access to the information that they consid-
ered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

(1) Cf. decision of 22 June 2005 in Case COMP/39.116 — Coca-Cola and decision of 19 January 2005 in Case COMP/37.214

— DFB.

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/17

This case has also been dealt with in the same manner, the FAPL having submitted a Declaration to the
Commission to this effect on 2 March 2006.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard have been respected in this case.

Brussels, 14 March 2006.

Karen WILLIAMS