Broadcasters cannot stop customers using cheaper foreign satellite TV equipment to watch Premier League football, an EU legal adviser has said.

A non-binding opinion from advocate Juliane Kokott of the European Court of Justice said a block breached EU laws.

Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy, fined for using Greek decoders, had argued the EU single market should let her use any European provider.

Sky and ESPN have the broadcast rights to Premier League football in the UK.

The satellite broadcaster has pumped billions into top flight English football since the league was founded in 1992, with the money given to clubs allowing them to buy some of the top names in the world.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will make a ruling on the matter later this year.

'Damage interests'
It also says it "would damage the interests of broadcasters and viewers of Premier League football across the EU".



Click to play

Click to play

Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson defends rights stance
A spokesman added that if the advocate general's guidance was taken it would stop rights holders from marketing their properties in a way which meets the territorial and cultural demands of broadcasters.

They said they hoped the ECJ would uphold current European law, which the league said was "framed to help promote, celebrate and develop the cultural differences within the EU".

The Premier League also said that if European Commission wanted to create a pan-European licensing model for sports, film and music then it must go through the proper consultative and legislative processes, not use the courts.

'Contrary to EU law'

The case at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been about whether a rights holder such as the Premier League can license its content on a country-by-country basis.

Such a set-up has allowed the league to fully maximise the value of its rights.

Although Advocate General Kokott's opinion is not binding, judges usually follow the guidance from the advocate.



Click to play

Click to play

Karen Murphy on why she took her fight to Europe, speaking in October 2010
If they do, selling sport, movies, or any other content, on an exclusive territory-by-territory basis within the EU may no longer be possible.

"The exclusivity agreement relating to transmission of football matches are contrary to European Union law," she said in her opinion.

"(The) exclusivity rights in question have the effect of partitioning the internal market into quite separate national markets, something which constitutes a serious impairment of the freedom to provide services."

Fined
Ms Murphy had been convicted for using the cheaper Greek satellite receiver to show top flight football in her pub.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis

Tim Franks
BBC Sports News
On one matter, the plaintiffs and the defence agree. Karen Murphy's case at the European Court of Justice could herald a revolution. And it would not just be football and Sky which would be caught in the turmoil. Intellectual property rights across the European Union could be changed forever.

For the first time, Saturday 3pm kick-offs would be widely available to watch on TV. A lure for many, certainly, but would it damage attendances at football grounds across the country?

There could also be immense implications for how we can consume music, books and film.

This is a point of permanent tension in the European project.

How far can you have a single European market without any boundaries to impede its smooth flow? And how far are national borders not an obstacle, but a protection?

She used the Nova firm to show matches in the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth as it was less expensive than Sky.

Enforcers working on behalf of Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL) - the private company which represents the broadcasting interests of the 20 English Premier League clubs - brought the prosecution saying only Sky TV had exclusive rights to show its games in the UK.

She had to pay nearly £8,000 in fines and costs.

Industry experts say satellite companies face having to reform - leading possibly to the creation of just a handful of pan-European broadcasters.

It was pressure from Brussels which forced the Premier League to offer its live matches to more then one broadcaster, rather then just renew the exclusive deals it traditionally had with Sky.

Packages were consequently taken up by Setanta, and when they went bust, by ESPN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12355022

Sorry about the layout, I'm in a bit of a rush

Wasn't that the argument used by the record labels when Apple was taken to court lat year? If so the Premier League will lose. I can see why a pub landlady did it Sky charge tens of thousands for such access.

this will lead to paying more for the same service.

I do not watch football but this is not good for the consumer. No competition. It will be bad long term for the game as well.

I'm confused by the comments here; from what I can read she won the case and ergo there's plenty of competition from other European broadcasters

Quite so - the whole point of the - well, it's not a judgement only a recommendation - is the arrangement as it stands is restricting competition. The EPL sells broadcast rights to one broadcaster in each region and that broadcaster can then charge whatever the hell it likes to people in that region and the customers have no choice at all. It's effectively creating geographically bound monopolies. The EU ruling simply allows the customer to go to any broadcaster in the EU for that service. Of course quite a lot of people are going to stick with their local broadcaster anyway as they'll want to understand the commentary but the pure fact that people could go somewhere else is probably going to drive down prices over time.

Not just me then.

I would imagine the greek feed had english commentators as well. Even so does everyone need a commentator? If you know the players numbers you could pretty much work it out for yourself.

or the EPL demands more money next time from the european broadcasters driving up the prices.

Blah de blah de blah...... footballers want even more money... blah de blah... so clubs want more money..... blah de blah.. so TV companies want more money..... blah de blah.... etc etc.

Wrong way round. The ludicrous money in football was started by the TV companies engaging in an auction for rights, not by the footballers/clubs demanding it. Of course, once they got one huge payoff they then did demand the same the next time round..

According to some stats I saw last night, of the £1b yearly business in EPLP rights, only £66m is earned in mainland europe and something like £400m is earned in the UK. That doesn't really seem sustainable if this ruling goes through as expected. And, TBH, I suspect they simply can't radically increase EPL rights cost to the EU, because people will just stop paying it.

Jon

If its only 66m then face losing the cash cow of Sky's money or lose the revenue from europe. My money is on the EPL (apart from fighting this tooth and nail) is to radically rise the prices for the European broadcasters to make it less atractive to UK people.

one question is why can Levi et all can get "grey imports" banned thus ensuring a geographical split in supply and not the EPL?

If they do increase it substantially then the numbers in Europe paying will drop off. I suspect that many of the greeks subscribers are bars catering to Brit tourists. If it is too expensive they will change business plans. Unltimately It might result in an end to monopoly deals. If it meant that terrestrial channels could get access that would suit many and might be the first bit of competition that Sky has had for a decade.