Stop free footie airing, judge says

An Administrative Court judge has concluded that the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission's (NBTC) announcement which requires all matches of the 2014 Fifa World Cup to be broadcast on free-to-air TV should be revoked.

The judge's opinion is not a final ruling but, in most cases, the Administrative Court would follow it.

If the court eventually rules in line with the judge's proposal, those hoping to watch the World Cup matches free of charge on free-to-air TV will have to pay to view them instead.

The judge in the case said that the plaintiff, RS International Broadcasting and Sport Management which is the broadcasting rights holder of the 2014 Fifa World Cup, would be damaged by the NBTC's "must-have" announcement.

In the judge's opinion, the company is exempt from the rule because it secured the contract before the NBTC issued the announcement. The firm signed the contract giving it the rights to broadcast the World Cup on Sept 12, 2005 while the must-have rule took effect in 2008.

If the NBTC contends that the World Cup is a popular sport which everyone should be able to watch, the state should buy the broadcasting rights itself instead of forcing a private operator which has paid for the rights to broadcast it publicly, the judge said.

Share your thoughts

Discussion 1 : 09/01/2014 at 06:56 PM
I agree. It will be on free to view in 99% of countries who watch football so why not here?
Discussion 2 : 09/01/2014 at 10:44 AM
Reasonable conclusion
Discussion 3 : 09/01/2014 at 10:41 AM
Actually why not? That is the case in the vast majority of other countries although those winning bidders would have kept their bids reasonable to reflect the fact. A DO agree with you it is wrong to change it after the event though. It will be interesting to see if FIFA react as i think they insist on, at least some level, of free to view when offering the contracts.
Discussion 4 : 09/01/2014 at 09:54 AM
Free to view does not preclude the sale of advertising, which does generate revenue for the right-to-broadcast holder. Pay-per-view just eliminates the need for the rights holder to sell advertising. This is a bad ruling, as it assumes there would be no advertising sales, and that the rights holder would completely loose his investment, which is not the case. This just gives the rights holder the privilege of being lazy, unless there will also be advertising sales on top of the consumer charged pay-per-view, then it is a case of excessive profit, and falls under morals, and what is considered enough profit, which has no meaning in Thailand.
Discussion 5 : 09/01/2014 at 09:51 AM
and who are "RS International Broadcasting and Sport Management?" and how do they plan to show the world cup?
Discussion 6 : 09/01/2014 at 09:45 AM
Have to agree with the judges. No free good football matches.
Discussion 7 : 09/01/2014 at 09:31 AM
Sensible decision.
Discussion 8 : 09/01/2014 at 09:07 AM
You can just download it for free if you are that addicted to a sport that is becoming ridiculous. I don't like SOCCER anyway, But I refuse to use pay TV for anything.
Discussion 9 : 09/01/2014 at 08:15 AM
Good. No one in their right senses would ask someone who paid for something to give it out free of charge to everyone else.

Back to top

More From