Discussing key issues associated with controversial discussions in sports media, it would be relevant to point out such criteria as the conflicts in values, important consequences or rights, and responsibilities among the stakeholders in the issue under consideration, where stakeholders might be represented as an entire television media service and a European Sports Commission with single sportsmen and various sports teams under its charge.
This paper is aimed to show whether or not such media discussion respects the rights of the involved sides. In this context, it should be discussed the above-mentioned case with the view to the international sport situation. As there has been already mentioned the key stakeholders of the present discussion would be the television media service itself and a European Sports Commission with single sportsmen and various sports teams under its charge.
Within such discussion, there should be analyzed and argued the stakes of those stakeholders that might be introduced as follows: economic and television media aspects associated with sport, representation of sport as a big business, and television media share in this business. To understand, describe and analyze the above-listed theses better, it would be relevant to argue which of the values, consequences, rights, or responsibilities are the most important considerations concerning the issue of the interest.
Following this, it should be said that, nowadays, sport performs indeed important social, economic, international and cultural function. That is why it is targeted by media services, especially, television. Another issue that should be considered while discussing the problem of interest is that sport is introduced by various critics and media as a big business.
One of the most striking, controversial, and vivid examples of this is introduced below. It describes the increase in salaries, payments, and transfer fees of sportsmen who practice sports professionally; also it shows the rise in the value and importance of television media rights within the context of sports activities and exclusive materials about them. Here might be suggested a citation that supports the above-mentioned claim: “In 1992, broadcasters paid 434 million euro for the television media rights of the English Premier League for five seasons. In 2000 they paid 2.6 billion euro for only three seasons” (Broadcasting Competition Law, 2003, January 15).
After providing such information, it would be relevant to analyze European Sports Commission’s opinion and view on the issue under consideration and its questionable issue of joint selling of television media rights. Thus, it might be concluded from the above-mentioned facts that European Sports Commission does not agree with the media’s statement that the already mentioned joint selling of television media rights of events in the sports world should be regarded as an obligatory issue for solidarity and peaceful measures between television media service and European Sports Commission with single sportsmen and various sports teams under its charge.
After analyzing, describing, and discussing all of the above-provided facts and materials about the given stakeholders in the issue under consideration and their stakes, it is possible to conclude that European Sports Commission is indeed interest in television media rights on events in the sports world as they play a significant role in the development of the television markets that gain huge profits. Following this, it is necessary to outline that television media interest in sports activities might be also explained by the usage of sports broadcasting in the system of newly liberalized television media markets.
Works cited
Toft, Torben. Broadcasting Competition Law. European Sport Commission. Brussels: EC Press, 2003.