Forget the Magna Carta and the Constitution. Don’t pay attention to the end of slavery. Ignore the defeat of the Nazis or the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
If you want a real victory for humanity, European courts have ruled that people have the right to free soccer games on TV. Apparently, people are now “entitled” to anything that is “of major importance” to society.
Isn’t that just peachy? Europe is slowly collapsing under the weight of the welfare state. Nations such as Greece and Portugal already have reached the point of fiscal collapse. But rather than address these problems, the political elites at the European institutions have decided on a modern-day version of bread and circuses for the masses.
Here’s a blurb from the Financial Times.
European countries are entitled to ban the exclusive airing of World Cup and European football championship games on pay-TV in order to allow wider public viewing on free channels, one of Europe’s top courts has ruled. The ruling is a blow for Fifa, which organises the World Cup finals, and Uefa, which handles the European Football Championship finals. Both organisations depend heavily on the sale of broadcasting rights for much of their income and had challenged the extent to which games had to be shown more widely. But on Thursday the General Court in Luxembourg slapped down their arguments and ruled in favour of Belgium and the UK, which had included games organised by Fifa or Uefa on their lists of events they considered to be “of major importance” to society and so entitled to wider audiences.
International Liberty 
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] let’s not forget that European courts that have ruled that there’s an entitlement to free soccer broadcasts and a right to satellite TV. About as nutty as the Finnish court that ruled there’s a right to […]
The FIFA or UEFA championships are generally funded by the organizing country’s government with minimal input from UEFA/FIFA, and the teams get financial support from their respective governments too. I see it only fair that governments then force these games to be shown on public TV networks. It is unfortunate that it was brought down to a “human rights” issue, which it obviously is not, but the dominance of the unaccountable organizations such as FIFA/UEFA in this field needs to be under control and such measures, I believe, should be in place albeit not having a human right status.
Nevertheless, in a European philosophy of civil law (as opposed to anglo-saxon common law), it is often understood that all rights are derived from natural/human rights. Ergo, this could be oversimplification on the part of court.
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
no surprise, Argentina has also pioneered in this particular version of bread and circus since August 2009
[…] P.P.P.S. Returning to the realm of public policy, the statists in Europe have decided that free soccer broadcasts are a human right. […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
[…] In the European Union, watching free soccer broadcasts is now a human right. […]
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
@Bobby
Hollywood find a solution in the form of merchandise, which generate up to 10 times of ticket revenue. And piracy actually help them sell more merchandise by promoting their movie.
On the other hand, now we end up with movies designed to promote toys rather than one with a good story.
[…] now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in […]
In regards to the comment comparing the situation with US college football, I would argue that since many of these schools are State universities, there should be some restrictions on it. The taxpayers are the ones who want to see the games, after all, and their taxes went to support these universities, so why shouldn’t they have some claim over an ability to watch them?
[…] also at least as silly as the European courts that have ruled that there’s an entitlement to free soccer broadcasts and a right to satellite […]
An “anti-siphoning” law, as it was called, is used in Australia to protect major events. The FCC had an Anti-Siphoning Regulation established to keep major programmes on local broadcast stations, where the local advertisers could make profits, until HBO sued the government to eliminate the regulation. Already, boxing has paid the price as a result of the shift from broadcast television to pay-television.
What makes anti-siphoning laws oddly more important now is the illegal streaming issue. What the push to pay television has done is lower ratings and a greater push for illegal streaming. If viewership is restricted legally to premium television, illegal streaming becomes a major problem. It’s a catch-22; either take less and be on networks, or take more money, restrict viewership, and face video piracy (which is the major issue now with broadcasting).
The difference between the Big Ten Network situation and the European soccer federations is that the conference and News Corp demanded in Big Ten markets that the channel be on regular, not premium tiers. This game is played with various channels. When CNBC’s dominance was threatened by the startup Fox Business, NBC Universal had provisions written into carriage contracts that Fox Business had to be in a premium tier, and could not be put on basic tiers, where CNBC would have a monopoly. In European soccer, almost all major leagues have adopted a subscription television package.
Popularity of events and ratings take a huge hit with the move to pay television. Professional boxing has taken such a hit since the move to pay-per-view television, and college football is in the start of such a hit, as the 2010 season (January 2011) BCS ratings took a huge hit with the move to pay television. The illegal streaming sites, however, pose a greater threat. Restricting feed to people who pay exorbitant sums will give people an incentive to watch programming on illegal streams, and destroy the rights holder’s fee.
While there is no “fundamental” right to FTA soccer, the bigger issue is how to stop piracy.
[…] European courts ruling that the ability to watch free soccer broadcasts is a human right (if it’s already the job of government to provide you with housing, healthcare, and employment, why not?); […]
[…] European courts ruling that the ability to watch free soccer broadcasts is a human right (if it’s already the job of government to provide you with housing, healthcare, and employment, why not?); […]
[…] should not be surprised by this odd decision. European courts already have ruled that free soccer broadcasts are a human right, so there’s obviously a pattern of inventing rights that require the violation of other […]
[…] Another post sarcastically noted that European courts decided that free soccer broadcasts were a fundamental right (meaning Europeans were being oppressed before TV was invented). […]
This sort of thing happened in the US when the NFL and college football conferences created their own networks. At Ohio State, local and even state politicians were mobilized to guarantee people in Columbus and elsewhere could watch at least some of OSU’s games. The Big Ten Network was slated to be a premium package channel through Time Warner but was negotiated down to an individually purchasable and/or a lower tiered channel. While the two cases are different, both involve a sense of entitlement over private goods.