[DTV]

Don’t think international courts will care about broadcasting rights.

Any court - international or domestic, whether they care or don't - will come to the same conclusion because the law is pretty clear: all FIFA World Cup games have to be offered live and in their entirety to free-to-air broadcasters. FIFA can try and sell to a streamer or pay TV channel, but they would then be obligated to allow at least one free-to-air broadcaster to simulcast all their matches. This would make it a commercially unappetising purchase in the first place as the BBC and/or ITV would not even have to compensate them.

FIFA could, of course, try and get the law changed, but such a move would be highly unpopular and so I doubt any government would seriously entertain it. They could try and challenge the law in court, but the Ofcom code is perfectly legal and has even stood up under the notoriously deregulatory EU competition law (which would, of course, no longer even apply). Ultimately, the current arrangement is probably in FIFA's best interests as I expect that, given the above circumstances, no streamer/pay broadcaster in their right mind would pay more than the BBC and ITV currently pay.

[Neil Jones]

It would mean FIFA would be in breach of the law and it would go to international court (and considering UEFA lost a challenge to this with Euro 2008, would likely go in Ofcom's favour)

Don’t think international courts will care about broadcasting rights.

If you're that desperate to see the World Cup on Prime, go and be an MP, get elected, introduce a bill to Parliament, see how far it gets (or doesn't get as the case may be) and keep trying until you manage to get the law changed.

[Newshound47]

Don’t think international courts will care about broadcasting rights.

Any court - international or domestic, whether they care or don't - will come to the same conclusion because the law is pretty clear: all FIFA World Cup games have to be offered live and in their entirety to free-to-air broadcasters. FIFA can try and sell to a streamer or pay TV channel, but they would then be obligated to allow at least one free-to-air broadcaster to simulcast all their matches. This would make it a commercially unappetising purchase in the first place as the BBC and/or ITV would not even have to compensate them.

FIFA could, of course, try and get the law changed, but such a move would be highly unpopular and so I doubt any government would seriously entertain it. They could try and challenge the law in court, but the Ofcom code is perfectly legal and has even stood up under the notoriously deregulatory EU competition law (which would, of course, no longer even apply). Ultimately, the current arrangement is probably in FIFA's best interests as I expect that, given the above circumstances, no streamer/pay broadcaster in their right mind would pay more than the BBC and ITV currently pay.

The thing is are we entirely sure Ofcom has that power over streamers. I mean Netflix is regulated by the Dutch I think. I think the rules need to be updated to make sure Ofcom has the power to enforce it against the streamers and that there is no risk anything on the A or B list ending up streaming only and Ofcom being unable to enforce the rules because the streamer is not under their full control unlike Pay TV.

[DTV]

The thing is are we entirely sure Ofcom has that power over streamers. I mean Netflix is regulated by the Dutch I think. I think the rules need to be updated to make sure Ofcom has the power to enforce it against the streamers and that there is no risk anything on the A or B list ending up streaming only and Ofcom being unable to enforce the rules because the streamer is not under their full control unlike Pay TV.

It's not really a question of Ofcom's powers in relation to the internet but in relation to broadcasters. The law isn't ambiguous - it has to be broadcast on free-to-air channels and so any organisation that prevented the free-to-air broadcast of the World Cup would be in breach of the law and would be sanctioned.

[JAS84]

If Amazon did get the rights, they could just stick it on their OTHER streaming service Freevee instead of Prime. As the name suggests, Freevee is a free streamer, so it would probably be within the law for them to do that.

[Jon]

If Amazon did get the rights, they could just stick it on their OTHER streaming service Freevee instead of Prime. As the name suggests, Freevee is a free streamer, so it would probably be within the law for them to do that.

It wouldn’t though. The list of applicable broadcast channels is clearly defined.

[DTV]

If Amazon did get the rights, they could just stick it on their OTHER streaming service Freevee instead of Prime. As the name suggests, Freevee is a free streamer, so it would probably be within the law for them to do that.

It wouldn’t though. The list of applicable broadcast channels is clearly defined.

And is incredibly limited - only the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are acceptable free-to-air channels according to the code. Even Channel 5 fails to qualify as My5 is viewed as not accessible enough to meet the 95% potential viewing threshold.

[bbctvtechop]

It wouldn’t though. The list of applicable broadcast channels is clearly defined.

And is incredibly limited - only the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are acceptable free-to-air channels according to the code. Even Channel 5 fails to qualify as My5 is viewed as not accessible enough to meet the 95% potential viewing threshold.

Curious about the BIB. Why is that?

[DTV]

And is incredibly limited - only the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are acceptable free-to-air channels according to the code. Even Channel 5 fails to qualify as My5 is viewed as not accessible enough to meet the 95% potential viewing threshold.

Curious about the BIB. Why is that?

Channel 5's status as an acceptable broadcaster has been on-and-off over the years. Certainly a few years ago (it may have changed more recently) they were excluded as My5 wasn't available on enough platforms and it was therefore deemed that not enough laptop/phone/etc. watchers would have access to anything that Channel 5 had the rights to.

[JAS84]

That's ridiculous. If you have a device that can access iPlayer and ITVX, surely it can also access My5?