|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2005-4
|
|
Ottawa, 12 January 2005 |
|
Global Television Network Inc. and Fox
Sports World Canada Holdco Inc., partners in a general partnership
carrying on business as Fox Sports World Canada Partnership
Across Canada |
|
Application 2004-0077-1
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-28
30 April 2004 |
|
Fox Sports World Canada – Licence amendment
|
|
The Commission approves the
application by Global Television Network Inc. and Fox Sports World
Canada Holdco Inc., partners in a general partnership carrying on
business as Fox Sports World Canada Partnership, to amend the licence of
the national Category 2 specialty programming undertaking Fox Sports
World Canada by replacing the licensee’s current condition of licence
defining its nature of service. |
|
The application
|
1. |
The Commission received an application by
Global Television Network Inc. and Fox Sports World Canada Holdco Inc.,
partners in a general partnership carrying on business as Fox Sports
World Canada Partnership (Fox), to amend the broadcasting licence for
the national English-language Category 2 specialty programming
undertaking known as Fox Sports World Canada (Fox Sports). The licensee
proposed to amend the condition of licence defining its nature of
service. Under the proposed amendment, the service would be devoted
primarily to the coverage of cricket, rugby and soccer; the licensee
would be permitted to devote no more than 25% of all programming
broadcast during the broadcast year to sports other than cricket, rugby
and soccer. The amendment would stipulate that the licensee may not
dedicate any coverage to the following North American men’s sports: ice
hockey, basketball, baseball and North American-style football.
Furthermore, with the exception of cricket, rugby and soccer, no more
than 5% of the broadcast year would be dedicated to the live coverage of
any one particular sport. |
2. |
Under the current condition of licence, the
licensee’s nature of service is restricted exclusively to the coverage
of cricket, rugby and soccer. The licensee noted that the seasonal
nature of the sports it is permitted to broadcast makes it difficult to
offer attractive year-round service to its viewers. |
|
The interventions
|
3. |
The Commission received seven
interventions: two in support of the application, four in opposition and
one expressing general comments with respect to rugby programming on
television. The opposing interventions were from The Score Television
Network Ltd. (The Score Network), licensee of the national
English-language specialty programming undertaking known as The Score;
Rogers Sportsnet Inc. (Rogers), licensee of the national,
English-language specialty programming undertaking, SportsNet; CTV
Specialty Television Inc. (CTV), which owns and controls the national,
English-language specialty programming undertaking known as The Sports
Network (TSN); and Mr. Philip Stiff. |
4. |
In their interventions, The Score Network,
Rogers and CTV all expressed concern that the proposed amendment represented
a fundamental change in Fox Sports’ nature of service that would lead
to its changing from a niche sports service to a general sports service.
According to these interveners, Fox Sports would consequently compete
directly with the existing general sports specialty services, namely
The Score, SportsNet and TSN, which CTV noted would counter the Commission’s
longstanding one-per-genre policy as set out in Licensing framework
policy for new digital pay and specialty services, Public Notice
CRTC 2000-6,
13 January 2000 (Public Notice 2000-6).
|
5. |
Rogers and CTV expressed concern that the
proposed 25% ceiling on sports programming other than cricket, rugby and
soccer would allow considerable programming flexibility to Fox Sports.
Rogers noted that, under the proposed amendment, Fox Sports could devote
a quarter of its programming schedule to one sport. CTV stated that Fox
Sports could broadcast the entire 25% of alternative sports programming
in a short period, given that there is no requirement to divide this
programming evenly over the broadcast year. Furthermore, both
interveners were of the view that the 5% ceiling on live coverage would
do little to prevent Fox Sports from becoming directly competitive with
the existing general sports specialty services. Rogers noted that, if
Fox Sports combined the 25% and 5% ceilings, it could fill the 7 p.m. to
11:30 p.m. viewing period every night with live coverage of sports other
than cricket, rugby and soccer. Rogers suggested that, in order to
minimize the potential for direct competition with the existing general
sports specialty services, the Commission should allow Fox to devote no
more than 10%, rather than the proposed 25%, of all programming
broadcast during the broadcast year to sports other than cricket, rugby
and soccer. |
6. |
For his part, Mr. Philip Stiff stated that
Fox Sports already broadcasts too few games from the tournaments and
leagues it tries to cover. He added that the service should strive to be
more "complete and comprehensive" with the sports it is already licensed
to broadcast. |
7. |
Rogers alleged that Fox was overstating the
impact of the summer season on its subscriber and advertising revenues.
The Score Network and CTV stated that most services experience a loss in
their subscriber base over the summer season. They argued that, in fact,
Fox Sports has a high subscriber base. The Score Network added that,
when compared to other Category 2 services, Fox Sports did better than
average in holding onto its viewers in the summer months. |
8. |
Furthermore, The Score Network and CTV were
of the view that Fox’s request was premature. In particular, CTV stated
that the licensee’s request was "extraordinary" given that the amendment
would change the service’s fundamental nature of service within the
first three years of operation, and that the licensee presented no
evidence of a material change in its circumstances to justify the
proposed amendment. CTV noted that, in the past, the Commission has
approved applications for amendments to the nature of service of other
specialty programming undertakings, but it has simultaneously imposed
conditions of licence to ensure that the basic nature of service would
not change. |
9. |
With respect to the licensee’s proposal to
exclude certain sports from its programming as part of its amended
condition of licence, Rogers suggested that, if the application were to
be approved, the amended condition of licence should instead list the
sports that are included in Fox Sports’ nature of service just as the
current nature of service does. |
10. |
As an alternative, Rogers recommended that
the list of excluded sports submitted by the licensee be expanded.
Rogers argued that Fox’s proposal to exclude North American men’s ice
hockey, basketball, baseball and North American-style football from Fox
Sports’ programming should not be limited to North American professional
leagues, but should encompass all levels of these sports, including
international tournaments and events. Rogers added that lacrosse should
be excluded from Fox Sports’ programming given SportsNet’s commitment to
the sport. In addition, according to Rogers, winter sports like figure
skating, curling, skiing and snowboarding should be excluded because
they do not fit into Fox Sports’ programming focus. Finally, Rogers
stated that golf, car racing and tennis should be excluded from Fox
Sports’ programming given that the appeal of such sports is not limited
to a primarily international audience. As an exception, however, Fox
Sports could broadcast golf, car racing and tennis programming from
international circuits. |
11. |
CTV expressed similar concerns. It noted
that most of the sports mentioned in Fox’s application are carried by
one of the existing sports specialty services. It also expressed concern
over the possible impact that the proposed change to the Fox Sports
licence could have on its Category 1 specialty service, WTSN. |
|
The licensee’s reply
|
12. |
In response to the interventions, Fox
argued that its application did not propose a fundamental change to Fox
Sports’ nature of service and denied that Fox Sports would become a
general sports specialty service were its application approved. Fox
submitted that its "application seeks to improve the service – not
dismantle it." It further stated that its intention is not to reduce the
amount of quality cricket, rugby and soccer that the service broadcasts,
but to show fewer repeats off-season. Fox pointed out that, in its
original application, it did not request any changes to the categories
and subcategories from which the service can draw programming, nor did
it request to carry "the cornerstones of Canadian sports broadcasting,"
that is, North American men’s ice hockey, basketball, baseball or North
American-style football. According to Fox, a general sports specialty
service would necessarily broadcast these four sports. |
13. |
In response to interventions suggesting
that Fox Sports should only broadcast cricket, rugby and soccer
programming, the licensee stated that programming rights and reception
cost considerations can make it difficult to broadcast only cricket,
rugby and soccer throughout the entire year. It added that there is not
an unlimited supply of high quality programming within those sports
available for broadcast year-round. |
14. |
Fox also disagreed with Rogers’ suggestion
that Fox Sports should not be permitted to broadcast lacrosse
programming. Fox submitted that lacrosse was not equal to the other four
major men’s sports, noting that SportsNet had broadcast far fewer
lacrosse games in the last year than it had men’s ice hockey,
basketball, baseball and North American-style football. |
15. |
Similarly, with respect to CTV’s concern
over the impact that the proposed amendment could have on WTSN, the
licensee argued that CTV gave up its right to object to the carriage of
women’s sports by other specialty programming undertakings when it
stopped broadcasting on WTSN. Moreover, the licensee was of the view
that it would be "entirely appropriate" for Fox Sports, a complementary
Category 2 service, to broadcast women’s sports. |
16. |
In response to the contention by The Score
Network and CTV that Fox’s request was premature, Fox noted that other
Category 2 services have applied for licence amendments in their first
licence terms. It pointed out that the Commission approved an
application by The Score Network to amend its licence less than four
years after it had obtained its original licence.1
The licensee noted that CTV and Rogers have also been granted
licence amendments to their Category 2 services, some in the first term. |
17. |
Nevertheless, to address the concerns
expressed by the interveners and so as not to offend the Commission’s
one-per-genre policy, Fox proposed to amend its request by reducing,
from 25% to 10% of the broadcast year, the amount of programming it
wishes to devote to sports other than cricket, rugby and soccer. It
further amended its request by agreeing not to dedicate any coverage to
the following men’s sports: ice hockey, basketball, baseball and North
American-style football. |
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
18. |
In Public Notice 2000-6,
the Commission stated that although it will license Category 2 services
that are competitive with each other, it will not license a Category
2 service that is directly competitive with an existing pay or specialty
service or with a new Category 1 service. |
19. |
In Introductory statement - Licensing
of new digital pay and specialty services, Public Notice CRTC
2000-171, 14
December 2000, the Commission adopted a case-by-case approach in determining
whether a proposed Category 2 service should be considered directly
competitive with an existing pay, specialty or Category 1 service.
The Commission examines each application in detail, taking into consideration
the proposed nature of service and the unique circumstances of the
genre in question. |
20. |
The Commission considers that the
licensee’s amended proposal to devote no more than 10% of all
programming broadcast during the broadcast year to sports other than
cricket, rugby and soccer is a more acceptable refinement to Fox Sports’
nature of service than the original proposal of 25%. While the amendment
of 10% allows the licensee some programming flexibility when it is
needed, the Commission is of the view that, under such an amendment, Fox
Sports would continue to be a niche sports specialty service and would
not compete directly with existing analog pay or specialty services or
with Category 1 services such as The Score, SportsNet and TSN. |
21. |
The Commission also considers it
appropriate to impose the requirements that no more than 5% of the
broadcast year will be dedicated to live coverage of any one particular
sport with the exception of cricket, rugby and soccer, and that the
licensee shall not dedicate any coverage to the following men’s sports:
ice hockey, basketball, baseball and North American-style football. The
Commission is of the view that these additional requirements, combined
with the 10% proposed amendment, are not sufficient to cause Fox Sports
to become directly competitive with existing analog pay or specialty
services or with Category 1 services such as The Score, SportsNet and
TSN. |
22. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves the application by Global Television Network Inc. and Fox
Sports World Canada Holdco Inc., partners in a general partnership
carrying on business as Fox Sports World Canada Partnership, to amend
the broadcasting licence for the Category 2 specialty programming
undertaking Fox Sports World Canada. The Commission therefore replaces
the licensee’s condition of licence defining its nature of service with
the following condition of licence: |
|
The licensee shall provide a national, English-language Category 2
specialty service devoted primarily to the coverage of cricket, rugby
and soccer. No more than 10% of all programming broadcast during the
broadcast year shall be dedicated to sports other than cricket, rugby
and soccer. With the exception of cricket, rugby and soccer, no more
than 5% of the broadcast year shall be dedicated to the live coverage
of any one particular sport. The licensee shall not dedicate any
coverage to the following men’s sports: ice hockey, basketball,
baseball and North American-style football.
|
|
Secretary General |
|
This decision is to be appended to the
licence. It is available in alternative format upon request, and may
also be examined at the following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
|
Footnote :
See Decision CRTC 2000-85,
24 March 2000. |
Date Modified: 2005-01-12 |