Pay TV phase three document - Stakeholders - Ofcom

Respondents’ views
Pay TV phase three document – non-confidential version
4.83 The FAPL argued that Ofcom failed to recognise that other important sports, or other
content found on TV are substitutes for content (including FAPL) found on premium
sports channels. The FAPL continued to dispute the conclusion that the sports
content on FTA TV does not constrain pay TV. It argued for example that:
� Other non-sport content is substitutable for sport 96 .
� The market should include other sport content found on FTA TV as it is likely to
appeal to premium sports subscribers 97 .
4.84 It argued in particular that the market is at least as wide as to include UEFA CL, FA
Cup and England internationals.
4.85 A number of respondents agreed with Ofcom that FAPL was an essential element of
a premium sports channel but were of the view that we failed to recognise other
important sports bundled with FAPL.
4.86 A number of respondents believed the market was wider than channels that included
FAPL – although many argued this point from the perspective of a potential remedy
rather than the underlying characteristics of the products in question. Specifically:
� Freesat 98 also believed that the wholesale Core Premium Sports channel market
was narrowly defined. It felt that the definition should include pay TV channels
which carry major international cricket and rugby, which also have significant
appeal to a broad audience.
� Five 99 believed the market included the full range of channels making up Sky’s
premium sports package.
� [ � ] 100 argued that focusing solely on FAPL would overlook the demand for
other sports provided within the Sky Sports package and in the event that that led
to a narrowly defined wholesale must-offer remedy, it would encourage Sky to
move key content onto other channels within its sports portfolio.
� [ � ] 101 suggested that Ofcom expand its market definition to include all sports
broadcast on Sky’s premium channels. It said that our market definition did not
take account of the broad range of other valuable sports content found on Sky
Sports. This would mean that the whole portfolio of Sky Sports channels would
become subject to any wholesale must-offer remedy. [ � ] believed this would
“increase the range and quality of premium content available to potential rival pay
TV retailers”.
96 FAPL response to Ofcom’s Second Pay TV Consultation paragraphs 4.13 and 5.27.
97 Ibid, paragraphs 5.27.
98 Freesat response to Ofcom’s Second Pay TV consultation page 3.
99 Five response to Ofcom’s Second Pay TV consultation page 3.
100 [ � ].
101 [ � ] response to Ofcom’s Second Pay TV consultation pages 2-6.
71