COLLUSIVE TENDERING OF SPORTS BROADCASTING RIGHTS AND EU COMPETITION LAW
In the competitive arena of sports broadcasting, where billion-euro sums change hands regularly, fairness is supposed to be the cornerstone of the deals. Rights to air major sporting events are awarded through public or private tenders, where broadcasters and production companies compete to offer the best value for leagues, sponsors, and fans. But what happens when this is not the case and competition is undermined from within?
Recently, cases in the United Kingdom and Brazil have highlighted a troubling practice: collusive tendering, also known as bid-rigging. Under European Union (EU) competition law, and, in particular, Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), such conduct is strictly prohibited. The same rules apply in the UK, under Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998, and mirror EU law, despite Brexit.
In essence, collusive tendering in sports broadcasting refers to secret agreements between broadcast and production companies that should be competing during a call for tenders. Rather than submitting independent offers, they coordinate their conduct to fix prices, allocate markets, or manipulate bids to predetermine the outcome. Whether through aligning minimum bids, dividing territories or broadcasting rights, or submitting deliberately inflated offers to simulate competition, such practices are designed to eliminate true rivalry. The result is inflated costs, reduced choice for viewers, and long-term harm to the financial health and visibility of sports leagues.
This issue recently came under scrutiny in the United Kingdom. In a decision published on 21 March 2025, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concluded a significant investigation into five of the country’s most prominent sports broadcasting and production companies: Sky, BT, IMG, ITV and the BBC. The CMA found that these companies had unlawfully coordinated freelance pay rates for roles, such as camera operators and sound technicians, staff essential to the production of televised sporting events.
Although this case did not involve direct manipulation of tenders for sports broadcasting rights, the underlying practice of exchanging sensitive information to avoid competition reflected a broader pattern of behaviour known as collusive tendering. This form of anti-competitive conduct is prohibited under both Article 101 TFEU and Section 2 of the UK Competition Act 1998.
The CMA found that the companies had shared confidential information on at least fifteen occasions between 2014 and 2021. In most cases, the exchanges aimed to avoid wage competition, maintain a united front on freelance rates and prevent bidding wars. Such coordination undermined the independence of the companies’ decision-making and distorted the market.
Four of the five companies, BT, IMG, ITV and the BBC, admitted to breaching UK competition law and agreed to settle the case. Collectively, they were fined over £4.2 million (around Sw.Frs. 4.68 million). However, the fines were reduced due to their cooperation during the investigation under the CMA leniency policy, which, similar to the European Commission cartel leniency programme, allows companies to reduce or eliminate fines in exchange for admitting and revealing anti-competitive conduct. Sky received no fine, having voluntarily reported its own conduct and cooperated with the CMA before the investigation began.
This case shows that even informal agreements can lead to serious legal consequences when they reduce competition. It also demonstrates the strategic value of early cooperation with the authorities. Companies that self-report may benefit from full immunity or substantial reductions in fines.
A similar pattern is emerging beyond Europe. In Brazil, the national competition authority, CADE (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Administrative Council for Economic Defense)), is currently investigating allegations of bid-rigging and market sharing in the sports broadcasting sector. The investigation involves eight companies and 37 individuals, including Dentsu, B4 Capital AS, and Infront Sports and Media, which are suspected of coordinating their offers and dividing up rights packages for major sporting events. Although the legal framework differs, the core principle remains the same: when competitors collude, rather than compete, they harm markets, consumers and the integrity of the sports industry.
These cases carry important legal implications for the industry. They also offer valuable lessons for compliance. Although they arose in different jurisdictions, both share a common legal foundation. They serve as a reminder that anti-competitive conduct does not always involve formal arrangements. Subtle coordination, even concerning labour costs or bidding strategies, can breach competition law if normal market dynamics are restricted.
For companies active in the sports and media sectors, the lessons are clear. Bidding processes must be designed and conducted independently, free from external influence or coordination. Any exchange of commercially sensitive information with competitors, whether formal or informal, carries significant legal risks and should be strictly avoided. When signs of past or ongoing collusion emerge, coming forward promptly and cooperating with the authorities can lead to substantial reductions in potential fines, which can reach 10% of an offending company’s world-wide turnover. Individuals involved in breaches of UK competition law can also be fined and sentenced up to five years in prison.
More broadly, building a culture of compliance across all levels of the organisation, particularly amongst management and commercial teams, is now essential to operating responsibly in this fast-moving and high-stakes environment.
Ensuring fair competition is not only a legal obligation, but also a necessary condition for the integrity, sustainability and success of the sports and media industries. When it comes to competition, the rules must be respected, on the pitch and behind the cameras to avoid substantial fines and other penalties.
Valloni Attorneys at Law assist sports clients in navigating complex regulatory environments and ensuring that their practices comply with EU and national competition rules. We also support these clients seeking to benefit from leniency procedures and help them to implement robust internal compliance strategies. For further information, email Dr Estelle Ivanova at ivanova@valloni.ch or Prof Dr Ian Blackshaw at blackshaw@valloni.ch.