1. SARU’s press release of 11 July 2024 concerning the ongoing disputes over sports rights involving eMedia, SuperSport and the SABC, is fundamentally incorrect.
2. It is therefore necessary for eMedia to set the record straight, given Mr Mark Alexander’s mischaracterisation of the facts underlying the legal action taken by eMedia in relation to agreements between SuperSport and the SABC concerning the broadcast of sporting events involving national sports teams.
3. To understand the current situation relating to the broadcast of certain sports events on free-to-air television, one needs to start with understanding what happened in relation to the broadcast of the World Cup which the Springboks won. SuperSport purchased the exclusive rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup games including the free-to-air rights, even though it could not use them. It was legally obliged to give all free-to-air broadcasters an opportunity to tender for the free-to-air broadcasting rights. It did not do so! Rather, at the last minute, SuperSport entered into an agreement with the SABC to broadcast certain of these games including all the South African games and the finals. However, the agreement between SuperSport and the SABC was worded in such a way that it prevented the SABC from broadcasting these games on its own channel as carried on the Openview platform. It was allowed to broadcast these games on every other terrestrial and satellite platform. This meant that 25% of the SABC’s own audiences, who access the SABC channels via Openview, were deprived of watching the World Cup.
4. eMedia subsequently approached the Competition Tribunal which ruled in eMedia’s favour. This ruling provided:
“The First to Fourth Respondents [i.e. SuperSport, MultiChoice and the SABC] are interdicted from implementing and enforcing any restriction in sub-licensing agreements entered into between them relating to the broadcasting of sports events in terms of which the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Proprietary Limited (SABC) is prohibited from transmitting or making available the sub-licence broadcasts on platforms owned or operated by the Applicants [eMedia and Openview].”
5. The effect of the ruling was that SuperSport and the SABC could not enter into an agreement in respect of any future sporting events which had the effect of preventing the SABC from broadcasting such events on its own channels as carried on the Openview platform. Despite this ruling, the SABC and SuperSport did precisely that when they entered into an agreement relating to the broadcast of the rugby test matches between the Springboks and Ireland. They included a restriction in their agreement which again prevented the SABC from broadcasting the matches on its own channel to its own audiences on the Openview platform. This was clearly contrary to the ruling of the Competition Tribunal.
6. SARU suggests that the reason the SABC did not show the Springbok / Irish test matches was because of eMedia. SARU got it wrong.
6.1. Mr Alexander fails to mention is that the SABC agreed with eMedia’s argument that the restrictions in the MultiChoice/SuperSport sub-licences were anti-competitive. For example, in its affidavit in the recent legal proceedings the SABC stated: “the SABC would obviously want to reach all the viewers who would watch the rugby tests via OpenView and other satellite broadcasters… And the SABC would also obviously want to show the rugby test matches live, rather than having a delayed transmission (as allowed by the sub-licence for the Springbok/Ireland test matches) and thus broadcasting the matches when the majority of South Africans would already know the results. As eMedia has recognised in its affidavit, Multichoice is not however prepared to grant the SABC any more extensive broadcasting rights. The SABC is thus constrained to accept what it is offered, or otherwise miss out on broadcasting the Springbok rugby test matches altogether.”
6.2. In 2021, the SABC voluntarily and in its own interest entered into a distribution and carriage agreement with eMedia to broadcast the SABC’s channels on eMedia’s Openview platform to a significant proportion of its viewers who watch its channels on the platform. The SABC derives all of the advertising revenue from its channels being broadcast on Openview. To be clear, eMedia and Openview derive no advertising revenue from the SABC channels being distributed on the Openview platform.
6.3. eMedia made a significant financial offer to MultiChoice to broadcast the Irish rugby Pretoria and Durban test matches, which MultiChoice inexplicably rejected.
6.4. The SABC itself has filed a complaint with the Competition Commission in relation to MultiChoice/SuperSport’s conduct in sub-licensing the free-to-air rights relating to sporting events.
7. In contravention of the Tribunal’s order, MultiChoice/SuperSport and the SABC concluded an agreement which would have prevented the SABC from using eMedia’s Openview platform to broadcast the Springbok/Ireland test matches to viewers of the SABC channels. In further contravention of the Tribunal’s order, they did not transmit the final of the World Cup T20 Cricket involving the Proteas on the Openview platform.
8. Following the institution of further urgent proceedings by eMedia, MultiChoice/SuperSport gave an undertaking to eMedia and the court late last week that it would permit the SABC to broadcast the rugby on Openview as well, at no additional cost to the SABC. This meant that the SABC would reach its entire audience instead of the more limited audience that it could reach under the terms of its sub-licence agreement with MultiChoice/SuperSport. Inexplicably, however, the SABC used the fact of that undertaking to cancel its agreement with MultiChoice/SuperSport in its entirety. It is the SABC’s decision which resulted in the rugby not being aired by it.
9. It is clear that MultiChoice/SuperSport and the SABC are solely responsible for the broader public not being able to watch these sporting events, such as the Springbok/Irish test matches and the cricket T20 final. eMedia has been in the public’s corner trying to ensure the widest access to these events.
10. The TV landscape in South Africa shows exactly how important it is for sporting matches involving national teams to be broadcast on free to air TV to promote sport as is the aim of the National Sport and Recreation Act.
- The blue bar reflects those households that received the rugby live.
- DStv total 7,6 million active households, the equivalent of 3,2 million households received the rugby live. The rest of DStv received the rugby delayed - 4,4 million households.
- Total television households in South Africa (15.9 million). Therefore only 3.2 million (i.e., 20%) of the South African TV households received the rugby live.
- SABC proposed delayed broadcast of the rugby – ultimately never aired the rugby to its audience.
11. Throughout this dispute, eMedia has advocated for broader access to sporting matches involving the national team so that not only the privileged few are able to watch these matches which function to bring our country together. It is clear from the graph above that only 3.2 million of DStv’s 7.6 million households and South Africa’s 15.9 million television households watched the rugby live. None of the households without DStv had an opportunity to watch the rugby.
12. When asked about the dispute, Khalik Sherrif, the CEO of eMedia said: “It is an absolute shame when the real facts of a dispute in which there is a court decision in favour of the public is distorted by a national body such as SARU. SARU should act in the interests of all South Africans and not only the privileged few. If only SARU would speak to all parties involved before issuing such a one-sided statement and not simply parrot MultiChoice’s views, this would be beneficial to the majority of TV viewers who also love rugby and have a sense of national pride when the Springboks play”.