Opinion ID: 402322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: JSC (sports claimants)

Text: 57 The JSC arguments focus on the Tribunal's rejection of the criteria proposed by the sports claimants for apportionment of the Fund, and on whether substantial evidence supports the Tribunal's apportionment decision even under the Tribunal's own criteria. Our discussion in Part II supra explains why neither of these contentions has merit. The Tribunal fully articulated its reasons for allocating a larger share of the Fund to movie and syndicated program copyrights, noting that sports programming has a more ephemeral quality: 58 In contrast to owners of movies and syndicated programs which can produce revenues repeatedly in different market situations, once a sports event has been telecast, it is thereafter usually of no further monetary value to the copyright owner. 59 Decision at 63,038. The truth of this observation will appear to anyone who has ever tried to cure insomnia with late-night television reruns, and even JSC seems to concede the point in its brief. 23 Although sports programs may command a higher audience share than most movies or programs, it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal to find that deficiencies in JSC's evidentiary presentation undermined its claim to some extent. 24 In view of the wide latitude that Congress gave the Tribunal in allocating cable royalties, the decision to give sports claimants 12% of the Fund is by no means unsupported by substantial evidence.