On the first of May 2015, the Spanish Government finally signed the Royal Decree allowing the joint selling of the media rights of the Spanish top two football leagues. The Minister for Sport stated that the Decree will allow clubs to “pay their debts with the social security and the tax authorities and will enable the Spanish teams to compete with the biggest European Leagues in terms of revenues from the sale of media rights”.[1]Although the signing of the Royal Decree was supposed to close a very long debate and discussion between the relevant stakeholders, its aftermath shows that the Telenovela is not entirely over. 

This blog post will first provide the background story to the selling of media rights in Spain. It will, thereafter, analyse the main points of the Royal Decree and outline how the system will work in practice. Finally, the blog will shortly address the current frictions between the Spanish League (LFP) and the Spanish football federation (RFEF). 

I. The road to the royal decree 

The old individual selling system 

The individual selling model of media rights in Spain was adopted in the 1997/1998 season. The Spanish individualized marketing system required that the TV operators and the clubs sign individual agreements over the media rights for La Liga games. Obviously, not all the agreements were born equals. The two biggest clubs in Spain, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, were soon deriving much more revenue from TV rights as the other clubs. Hence, it is not surprising that latter have been asking for a bigger share of the TV rights revenues since then. For the 2014/15 season, for example, Barcelona and Madrid earned 140 million € each, whereas Córdoba, Eibar and Deportivo la Coruña have only earned 17.5 million €. Even the last winner of La Liga (Atlético de Madrid) has received only 45 million € (3.1 times less than Barcelona and Madrid). Meanwhile, the overall sum paid by the operators to all the teams (MEDIAPRO Agency and PRISA Media Group) reached 742.5 million €/year for a three-year deal (2012/13 to 2014/15).[2] 

Due to the delay in approving the Royal Decree, some clubs (such as Barcelona) decided to sign an individual contract with a TV operator for the 2015/16 season. Consequently, it is unlikely that La Liga will be able to collectively sell its media rights for the next season. However, the new system should be in place for the 2016/17 season.  

Disagreements prior to the Royal Decree 

The negotiating process prior to signing the Royal Decree involved three main stakeholders: the Spanish Government (CSD –High Sports Council- and the Minister for Sport), the RFEF and, obviously, the LFP. The most difficult hurdle to overcome was the RFEF’s demand of a non-negotiable 2% share of the broadcasting revenues. Both the CSD and the LFP refused to budge and considered that the RFEF should not get more than 1%. The negotiations were especially tense as a consequence of a personal feud between the presidents of the main bodies involved.  

Why a Royal Decree? 

Notwithstanding the RFEF’s outspoken disapproval, the Royal Decree 5/2015 was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 30 April 2015 and was published in the Official Journal on the following day. In principle, a Royal Decree is only used for extraordinary and urgent matters and the Spanish Parliament must consolidate it in a law 30 days after its approval, which was done, last week. Nevertheless, one may question whether this was truly a matter of urgency requiring the introduction of a Royal decree. According to the explanatory memorandum of the Royal Decree it is justified on the basis of the public interest in securing a new system to commercialize the media rights. The justifications included in the Decree read as follows: 

“Concerning the media rights of professional football competitions, three reasons justify the need for an urgent response by the Government: first, the undisputed social relevance of professional sport, second, the repeated and unanimous demands to intervene from all parties involved and, finally, the need to promote competition in the market for the ‘pay-per-view’ television.”[3]

II. The new LFP’s media rights collective selling system 

The LFP’s media rights remain owned by the clubs. However, the football clubs are obliged to assign the right to commercialize them to the organizing bodies of the competition, i.e. the LFP (first and second division) and the RFEF (the cups).[4] 

The conditions for the joint selling of the media rights

In accordance with article 4 of the Royal Decree, the organising bodies will commercialize the media rights on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis.  Moreover, the procedure must be fair and equitable. The LFP and the RFEF will define the different packages commercialized in line with Article 4(4) of the Royal Decree.  These conditions will be attached by the organizing body into categories (‘packages’), depending whether it is on an exclusive basis or not, the time of the game and the duration (maximum 3 years), in accordance with the Article 4(4). The structure of the packages will be set out when the collective selling takes place.  

The specific distribution key of the revenues derived from the collective selling is enshrined in Article 5: 90% of the revenues will go to the first division clubs, and 10% to the second division clubs.   

Graph: Distribution of the money regarding the media rights of the first and second division:

Payments by the clubs after the distribution of revenue: The overdue debts to the Public Revenue and the indirect solidarity contributions.  

After receiving their share of revenue from the media rights, the clubs must first cover their overdue debts with the Spanish tax authorities. Indeed, Article 6(2) holds that “(t)he payment of overdue and payable debts owed to the ‘State Agency Tax Administration’ and the ‘General Treasury of the Social Security’ shall be considered on a preferential basis”. No club will be able to carry out the indirect solidarity payments foreseen by Article 6(1), if they do not reimburse their outstanding liabilities with the public authorities.

It is a well-known fact that Spanish football clubs have accumulated large amounts of debts over recent years. Indeed, at the end of the year 2013, the debt of the Spanish football amounted to 3.600 million € in total, with “around 700 million” to the public authorities. The Royal Decree is also aimed at tackling this longstanding debt “addiction” of many Spanish football clubs.                                             

Furthermore, in accordance with article 6(1) of the Decree, the clubs will have to make solidarity contributions to specific funds and Institutions promoting football and sport. These contributions will only be made after the obligatory contributions to the tax authorities have been paid. The five contributions include:

1. 3.5% of the broadcasting revenues will be used to create a ‘Compensation Fund’ in order to assist relegated clubs from the first Division to the second and from the second division to the third division (in Spain known as the second division “B”). Out of the Compensation Fund, 90% will flow to the relegated clubs from the first Division and 10% to the relegated clubs from the second Division.

2. 1% of the broadcasting revenues will go to the LFP for the purpose of promoting the League on the domestic and international market.

3. 1% of the broadcasting revenues will go to the RFEF as a solidarity contribution to develop amateur football[5].

4. Up to 1% of the broadcasting revenues will go to the Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD), a Spanish Governmental body encouraging the development of sport in Spain. The goal of this contribution is to finance the social protection of high-level athletes (not just football players).

5. A further 0,5% of the broadcasting revenues will go to the CSD, and shall be distributed in the following way:

   1. Aid to female football clubs participating in the Women’s First Division, covering social security contributions.

   2. Aid to football clubs participating in the Second Division “B”, in order to pay social security contributions.

   3. Aid to associations or unions of players (‘AFE’), referees, coaches and trainers. 
      

The Spanish cup and Supercup revenue-sharing criteria

The packages will be made according to the criteria similar to those applicable to the LFP’s media rights. The revenue generated by the RFEF’s competitions will be shared as follows (Article 8):

1. 90% will be directly allocated to the LFP teams (first and second division). This money will be distributed to these clubs using similar criteria as for LFP Competitions. The revenue share depends on the results obtained by the teams in the cup. The distribution envisaged foresees 22%, for the winner; 16%, for the runner-up; 9%, for the semi-finalists; 6%, for the quarter-finalists; and 2,5%, for the clubs who got knocked-out the round of the last 16.

2. 10% will be used for the promotion of lower (semi) professional football and amateur football, that is to say, for clubs who play in the cup but are not in first or second division.

III. The Problem with the Decree: RFEF and AFE’s Opposition 

The main beneficiaries, i.e. the clubs, are quite exultant after the publication of the Royal Decree. Nonetheless, two bodies believe that they are the principal losers of the distribution model adopted, namely the RFEF and AFE (Spanish Professional Footballer's Association). In fact, the RFEF and AFE’s discontent is such that they have threatened to organize a strike paralysing the last few games of the current season, should the Decree not be renegotiated.

RFEF

The RFEF wanted 2% of the total revenue for itself, but the Decree allocated to the RFEF only 1% of the total. , As discussed above, this share will be paid indirectly by the club as outlined in Article 6(1). This implies that the federation will get paid only once, and if, the clubs have serviced their overdue debts with the public authorities.

In addition to this, the Federation did not obtain any compensation for women’s football or (semi) professional football in lower divisions. The competence for supporting women’s football and lower professional football rests with the CSD even though it is the RFEF that is in charge of the organisation of the competitions. In other words the RFEF has no control over the money flowing into the competitions it is responsible for. 

AFE

The frustration expressed by AFE (Professional Footballer's Association) is also understandable. The players have not obtained a fixed share of the broadcasting revenues, as is the case in England (1.5%) or France (1.09%). Nevertheless, according to the Royal Decree, AFE will receive from the CSD a contribution of “up to 0.5%” (Article 6(1)(e), par. 3). Moreover, the players’ representatives claim they were unjustifiably excluded from the negotiations. Without the ability of partaking to the negotiations, they were unable to secure higher guarantees for the players regarding the payment of the salaries in the lower divisions of Spanish football. Given that many players do not receive their salaries on time in the lower Spanish divisions, this money would have been a potential solution to a chronicle problem.

The strike

In return, AFE (supported by elite players like Casillas, Xavi, Piqué or Ramos) threatened with a strike. For its part, RFEF suspended all the Spanish football competitions. In response to these moves, the LFP lodged a case against AFE in the Spanish Courts, requesting the suspension of the strike and the recognition of its illegality as it would lack a legitimate ground and would violate the existing collective bargaining agreement. 

The Audiencia Nacional (the National High Court in Spain) decided on 14 May in a preliminary decision to suspend the strike. This decision ensured that the last two games of the season and the final of the Copa del Rey will be played. The case is still pending and awaits a decision on the merits. The hearing will be held on 17 June. The parties have already commenced negotiations in order to reach an agreement before the hearing. But, given that the Royal Decree has been ratified by the Parliament, very few substantial changes to the system put in place by the Decree can be made. Thus, only minor peripheral adjustments are to be expected.  

Conclusion

In my opinion, there are two key aspects that must be kept in mind. First, the duty to pay overdue debts to the public Authorities. This mandatory requirement cannot be found in any other countries and is clearly linked with the specific problems that exist in Spanish football with regard to the clubs’ indebtedness and the enmeshment of local politicians in their management. On the other hand, the other key change introduced by the Royal Decree will be that La Liga will be in a position to negotiate a much hoped for gigantic TV deal with the broadcasters. A deal, which will not exclusively benefit Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. The economic gap between these two teams and the rest of the pack was growing bigger and bigger over the last years. With the new system in place, this gap is poised to be reduced. Nevertheless, the distribution method still heavily favours the status-quo. The traditionally large clubs are rewarded for having a large number of supporters, and for their past performances. Hence, it is still virtually impossible for a smaller Spanish clubs to become, over a short time span, one of the top-earning clubs in La Liga.

[1] IUSPORT: “Aprobado el Real Decreto-Ley de los derechos audiovisuales del fútbol”

http://iusport.com/not/6713/aprobado-el-real-decreto-ley-de-los-derechos-audiovisuales-del-futbol/

[2] MARCA, “Así será el reparto del dinero televisivo”, available at http://www.marca.com/2015/05/01/futbol/1430467483.html

[3] RD 5/2015, Explanatory Memorandum.

[4] Article 2 RD 5/2015.

[5] This percentage may be expanded by agreement

The year is coming to an end and it has been a relatively busy one for the CAS Ad Hoc divisions. Indeed, the Ad Hoc division was, as usual now since the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996[1], settling  “Olympic” disputes during the Winter Olympics in Sochi. However, it was also, and this is a novelty, present at the Asian Games 2014 in Incheon.  Both divisions have had to deal with seven (published) cases in total (four in Sochi and three in Incheon). The early commentaries available on the web (here, here and there), have been relatively unmoved by this year’s case law. Was it then simply ‘business as usual’, or is there more to learn from the 2014 Ad Hoc awards? Two different dimensions of the 2014 decisions by the Ad Hoc Division seem relevant to elaborate on : the jurisdiction quandary (part. 1) and the selection drama (part. 2).

Part. 1: The Jurisdiction quandary: Too early to be judged!

The scope of jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division of CAS is provided for in article 1 of the ‘Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games’ (the same is true for the Asian Games)[2]. However, legal uncertainties over this scope of jurisdiction remain a defining feature. Many earlier disputes in front of the Ad Hoc division have tackled this question, and this has been true again this year.[3]

It is not so much the scope rationae personae that might be problematic, although one case arose at the Asian games in which two former squash players were denied access to the Ad Hoc division on the basis of not being “participating athletes”.[4] Nor is it the rationae materiae that has been a real problem, as claimants tend to submit disputes, which are related to the Games. No, the problem child is usually the jurisdiction rationae temporis. Indeed, article 1 of the rules states that “any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games” can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division. So the key question is: When does a dispute “arise”? 

In the Birkner case[5], the Ad Hoc Division in Sochi had to grapple extensively with the question of when the dispute arose as, during the hearing, the respondent, Comitato Olympico Argentino, “denied the existence of a basis of jurisdiction of the panel”. The case concerned a selection drama for the Sochi Games (see part 2); jurisdiction rationae personae and rationae materiae were unproblematic. The CAS did examine whether the local remedies were exhausted, and considered that “that there were no internal remedies to exhaust”.[6] The only barrier left for jurisdiction to be asserted was the ratione temporis. In short, “did the dispute arise in the required time frame?”[7]

This “vexing issue” [8] was touched upon repeatedly in past Ad Hoc division awards.[9] In the Birkner case, it had to be demonstrated that the dispute arose not earlier than the 28 January 2014, 10 days before the opening ceremony scheduled for the 7 February 2014. The panel first reaffirmed the fact that “the date when the dispute arose cannot, per se, be the date when the Request for Arbitration is filed” .[10]  So, back to the key question, when did the dispute arise?

The award refers extensively to the Schuler case[11]. In its main holding on jurisdiction, the 2006 panel considered that “it would not be possible to say that a dispute had arisen until Ms Schuler had decided to appeal and had filed notice of her appeal”.[12] Nevertheless, the 2014 panel refused to consider the Schuler precedent to be applicable to the Birkner case for two reasons: the factual situation is different and the reasoning used in Schuler is fundamentally flawed.

On the factual side, contrary to the Schuler case, the panel finds that “[i]n the present case […] the explanation was not given on a date inside the required period, as it was either on 20 January 2014, which is the date of the letter of explanation, or on 22 January 2014, which is the date on which the Applicant says that she received that letter”.[13] Both of these dates being well before the 10 days period, the panel is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction. On the legal side, the panel is clearly not “convinced by the legal reasoning adopted in the Schuler case” .[14] In fact, it considers that “[s]uch conclusion could extend the jurisdiction of the ad hoc Division outside the precise and limited framework set by the Rules, which this Panel is required to respect and apply” [15]. The panel is of the opinion that “the date when a dispute arises is in general […] the date of the decision with which the Applicant disagrees” .[16] However, “[s]uch a date can arise later […] if […] the decision is not self-explanatory and requires some explanation in order for the parties to know with certainty that they are in disagreement”.[17]

This is a noteworthy consideration, which indicates a substantial reduction of the scope of jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division. If the parties do not agree to the jurisdiction of CAS (in practice they often do not contest the jurisdiction[18]) it will render more difficult the referral of a dispute to the Ad Hoc Division. This understanding of the start of a dispute is contradicting the overall aim of the Ad Hoc Division, which is to deal swiftly with all disputes intimately linked to the Games. In this light, a more flexible interpretation of the jurisdiction rationae temporis, as suggested in the Schuler case, is preferable. Athletes are no legal experts; they (and sometimes their lawyers) need time to find their way through the jungle of sporting regulations and dispute resolution mechanisms potentially applicable. The crucial importance of the Olympic Games for an athlete’s career call for an interpretation of the start of the dispute that focuses on the intention to challenge the decision as highlighted in the Schuler award[19]. Moreover, any doubts concerning the starting date of the dispute should play in favour of the athlete, unless the time between the date of notification of the contentious decision and the decision to lodge a complaint in front of CAS is disproportionately (and abusively) long. The attack by the Birkner panel on the reasoning adopted in Schuler is no anodyne move; in the future it may threaten the access to justice of athletes and their ability to obtain a swift and fair decision, in a context where they most urgently need it.

[1] On the early days of the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Olympics, the book by Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler is a must read : G. Kaufmann-Kohler, Arbitration at the Olympics, Kluwer Law, 2001.

[2] Article 1 of the Arbitration Rules for the OG stipulates that:

“The purpose of the present Rules is to provide, in the interests of the athletes and of sport, for the resolution by arbitration of any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games.”

“In the case of a request for arbitration against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the claimant must, before filing such request, have exhausted all the internal remedies available to him/her pursuant to the statutes or regulations of the sports body concerned, unless the time needed to exhaust the internal remedies would make the appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.”

[3] CAS OG 14/03; CAS AG 14/01; CAS AG 14/02.

[4] See CAS AG 14/01, §2.5. See also CAS OG 12/03, §2.3.

[5] CAS OG 14/03

[6] CAS OG 14/03, §5.14

[7] CAS OG 14/03, §5.17-5-30

[8] CAS OG 14/03, §5.20

[9] Most notably in the Schuler case, CAS OG 06/002. For a general commentary see: I.S.LR. 2006 pp.50-51 and A. Rigozzi, ‘The decisions rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Turin Winter Olympic Games 2006’, Journal of International Arbitration 23 (5): 453-466, 2006

[10] CAS OG 14/03, §5.21

[11] CAS OG 14/03, §5.24

[12] CAS OG 06/002, §14

[13] CAS OG 14/03, §5.25

[14] CAS OG 14/03, §5.25

[15] CAS OG 14/03, §5.27

[16] CAS OG 14/03, §5.28

[17] CAS OG 14/03, §5.28

[18] See for example CAS OG 14/01 §6.2 and CAS OG 14/02 §6.5

[19] In cases, in which the dispute overtly arose earlier than 10 days before the games such a restrictive interpretation could be tolerated. See for example: CAS OG 12/03, §2.3.23; CAS OG 12/02, §4.10; CAS OG 12/04, §5.2.