BCCI seeks to extend IPL monopoly

New Delhi, April 2: Notwithstanding a hefty penalty imposed on it by the Competition Commission of India for abusing its “dominant” position to promote its commercial interests in the Indian Premier League (IPL), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has seemingly continued with its monopolistic financial practices.

On the eve of the IPL VI season, the BCCI, in a fresh note addressed to media houses across the country on March 29, asked them to desist from any activity that could amount to using any IPL logo or content in a way that might be deemed to be a commercially-driven activity.

Restrains print media

A newspaper, for instance, cannot use a third party to advertise on a news page dedicated to IPL coverage, or, no commercial logo can go along with a syndicated column, or a score-card sponsored by an advertiser, etc.

Stating that the BCCI enjoyed exclusive rights in these regards, the BCCI note stated that “it fully intends to and will enforce its rights against the unlicensed commercial utilisation by third parties of the IPL, names, IPL marks and IPL proprietary content in contravention of the rights granted by the BCCI-IPL to its sponsors.” It stated that the print media was allowed to utilise the official logo only for “journalistic, news reporting and non-commercial purposes.”

The note was sent out by Copyright Integrity Advisory (India) Pvt Ltd on behalf of the BCCI-IPL.

It may be recalled, on February 8, the commission, on a complaint from a cricket fan in Delhi, had held that the “BCCI has abused its dominant position in contravention of Section 4(2) (C)” of the Competition Act, 2002.

In its elaborate order, the commission had held that the BCCI, as a legitimate regulator of the game of cricket in India, was extending its monopoly regulatory powers in organising IPL, which is a private professional league.

In effect, the apex cricket body was using its monopoly regulatory powers for protecting its own commercial interests, it had said.

“The situation where the regulator is also the economic beneficiary leading to role overlaps is definitely a competition concern,” the commission had concluded.

Imposing a hefty penalty of Rs 52.24 crore on the BCCI, the commission had, in its order, directed it, among others, to “cease and desist from using its regulatory powers in any way in the process of considering and deciding any matter relating to its commercial activities.”