Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

C. Consideration of the Supplementary Investigation report

6. Upon considering the supplementary investigation report, the Commission, vide its order dated 31st August, 2016, observed that "On a perusal of the supplementary investigation report, it is observed that Rule 28 of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) Rules provides that permission for conducting cricket match or tournament will be accorded only to the members of BCCI. In terms of Section 32 of the ICC Bye-laws, any cricket tournament or match conducted without the approval of BCCI will be deemed to be Disapproved Cricket. Further, Rule 29 of the BCCI Rules provide that: (a) no member, associate member or affiliate member of BCCI shall participate or extend help of any kind to an unapproved cricket tournament; (b) no player registered with BCCI or its member, affiliate member or associate member could participate in an unapproved tournament; and (c) no umpire or scorer on the BCCI Panel shall associate with an unapproved tournament. Against this background, it appears that no private organizer could conduct any meaningful cricket match or tournament without the support of BCCI. Seen in the backdrop of these restrictive rules, the representation and warranty given by BCCI under clause 9.1(c)(i) of the IPL Media Rights Agreement that it shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support to any other league that is competitive to the professional domestic Indian T20 competition, during the rights period i.e. for a sustained period of ten years, forecloses the market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues/events in India. Therefore, the aforesaid representation and warranty given by BCCI, read in conjunction with its restrictive rules/bye-laws cited above, is found to be in violation of the of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act." Copies of the supplementary investigation report and the above order dated 31st August, 2016 were sent to the parties for filing their suggestions/ objections thereto.

b. Rules 28(b) and 28(d) of BCCI Rules 9.22. The DG misinterpreted Rules 28(b) and Rule 28(d) of the BCCI rules and held them anti-competitive, as they do not allow any private organisation to conduct cricket match/ tournament. Rule 28(b) provides that no member or a Club affiliated to a member or any other organisation shall conduct cricket match or tournament specified therein, without the approval of BCCI. The principle of ejusdem generis is to be applied in interpreting the scope of the term 'any other organisation' and thus, the said phrase does not include private organisations. Accordingly, there is no prohibition on private organisers to organise a professional domestic cricket league/event. The restriction on private organisations stipulated under Rule 28(d) applies only in respect of international matches.

Issue No. 3. Since dominance of BCCI in the relevant market has been ascertained, whether BCCI has abused its dominant position in the relevant market?

41. In addition to the findings of the DG, at the time of forwarding the supplementary investigation report to the parties, the Commission, vide its order dated 31st August, 2016, had noted that the representation and warranty given by BCCI in the IPL Media Rights Agreement that "it shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support during the Rights period another professional domestic Indian T20 competition that is competitive to the league [IPL]", is in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. In the supplementary investigation report, the DG has concluded that the said clause of the IPL Media Rights Agreement is nothing but a clarification in consonance with Rules 28(b) and 28(d) of the BCCI Rules and Regulations. The DG has also found that Rules 28(b) and 28(d) of BCCI Rules and Regulations are in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act as they leave no scope or window for conduct of any kind of professional domestic cricket other than by BCCI or its members. The DG has also stated that there is nothing on record to consider these restrictive conditions as inherent to the objectives of the cricket and that the effect of such restrictive condition is proportionate to the legitimate sporting interest of cricket administration. The parties have been afforded opportunity to file their submissions on the findings of the supplementary investigation report as well as the above observation of the Commission in its order dated 31 st August, 2016.

44. The Commission is of the considered view that the system of approval under pyramid structure of sports governance is a normal phenomenon of sports administration. However, sporting rules often create a restrictive environment for the economic activities that are incidental to the sport. In case of BCCI, Rule 28 of BCCI Rules stipulates that the permission for conducting cricket match or tournament will be accorded only to its members and their affiliates. BCCI has argued that Rule 28(b) is not applicable for organization of leagues like IPL. However, there appears no merit in such contention as any cricket tournament or match conducted without the approval of BCCI will be deemed to be Disapproved Cricket in terms of Section 32 of the ICC Bye-laws. Further, Rule 29 of the BCCI Rules provide that: (a) no member, associate member or affiliate member of BCCI shall participate or extend help of any kind to an unapproved cricket tournament; (b) no player registered with BCCI or its member, affiliate member or associate member could participate in an unapproved tournament; and (c) no umpire or scorer on the BCCI Panel shall associate with an unapproved tournament. In the absence of these resources, no private entity can organize any meaningful cricket match or tournament without the support of BCCI. Seen in the backdrop of such restrictive Rules, the Commission finds that the representation and warranty given by BCCI that it shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support any other league that is competitive to the professional domestic Indian T20 competition, during the rights period i.e. for a sustained period of ten years, forecloses the market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues/events in India.