“You Can Win, But I Never Lose”?: Doordarshan, Cricket Telecast and Competition in India
The ongoing (and ostensibly never-ending) controversy about the telecast rights for India – Pakistan cricket series is redolent of short-sighted approach towards understanding of the gamut of issues involved. The nub of this piece is to argue that the property rights related to telecast of cricket ought to be left to the forces of market competition, as long as a level playing field is ensured in the initial allocation of the rights.
To begin with, we need to grapple with fundamental issues – what is so distinctive about cricket? And, what exactly are cricket telecast rights? Way back in 1995, Justice P.B. Sawant in the case of Cricket Association of Bengal had found that “the game of cricket is by far the most popular in all parts of the country. This is evident from the over-flowing stadia at the venues wherever the matches are played and they are played all over the country. It will not be an exaggeration to say that at least one in three persons, if not more, is interested in viewing the cricket matches.” Though Justice Sawant did not collect any statistical evidence, and he spelled out that “this is not a deficiency felt only in this arena”, nevertheless, he enjoined that “it cannot be denied that a vast section of the people in this country is interested in viewing the cricket matches”. Even if one concedes that cricket is indeed popular, would this really transmute the nature of cricket telecast rights as property rights that ought to be subject to market competition?
The cricket telecast rights are typically the property rights over signals to air the cricket matches so that interested viewers may have access to their favourite sport. Do telecasters act in charity? Of course not. When telecasters air the matches, they intersperse them with advertisements of a mélange of products, so that they can earn revenues. In the good old days, when Doordarshan had effective monopoly over telecast of cricket, it took the revenue earning potential of cricket matches rather too seriously. More often than not, Doordarshan used to black out the first and last balls of an over so that it could maximize the time slots available for carrying out advertisements!
Despite being short-changed, why weren’t consumers up in arms against Doordarshan? Besides wielding highly diffused power, there was an absolute lack of choice. The available state of technology acted as a humongous entry barrier and ensured that barring Doordarshan no one else had the wherewithal to carry out telecast of cricket. The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) hands were tied as well – unless matches were accessible to the mass of viewers, they too stood to lose vast sums of their investments.
Things changed with passage of time. By early nineties, technology was sufficiently advanced to ensure that cricket telecast no longer remained dependant upon the magnanimity of Doordarshan. Nonetheless, when BCCI awarded the telecast rights to ESPN, Doordarshan indulged in arm-twisting to thwart nascent competition. Since then, telecast rights of cricket have perpetually remained mired in controversy. The real battle, nevertheless, has shifted to courts who willy-nilly don the mantle of umpires in the game of telecast rights. The latest in the saga is the ongoing India-Pakistan series being played in Pakistan.
Interestingly, a marked improvement in transparency of the tender process has been a remarkable concomitant development. By and large, a level playing field is available. For instance, Doordarshan could have easily bid for telecast rights of the present India-Pakistan series. When they chose not to exercise the option, should the courts, ex post, alter the contract in favour of Doordarshan? An endeavour for acquisition of property rights requires effort, planning and investment. If a rival could undo what a player achieves through superior skill, merely by piggybacking the courts, it would act as a huge disincentive for the players to compete. This hurts the process of competition, which ensures that market rivalry as an organizing principle for economic activity remains robust and effective.
Courts ought to intervene only when overriding public interest is involved. Popularity is hardly the yardstick for public interest. A free access to the blockbuster Rang De Basanti might as well be a popular demand, however, that cannot possibly justify the courts granting rights to Doordarshan to telecast it. When you play the game, you should be prepared to lose. As the clichéd phrase goes, the importance lies in participation. If someone wins, but you refuse to lose, your victory in avoiding loss might be Pyrrhic. In the ensuing cricket series, if no company finds it worthwhile to place a bid and God forbid, Doordarshan’s atavistic instincts reign supreme we might have to bid adieu to first and last balls of an over, superb commentary skills and an in-depth analysis of the game!
To begin with, we need to grapple with fundamental issues – what is so distinctive about cricket? And, what exactly are cricket telecast rights? Way back in 1995, Justice P.B. Sawant in the case of Cricket Association of Bengal had found that “the game of cricket is by far the most popular in all parts of the country. This is evident from the over-flowing stadia at the venues wherever the matches are played and they are played all over the country. It will not be an exaggeration to say that at least one in three persons, if not more, is interested in viewing the cricket matches.” Though Justice Sawant did not collect any statistical evidence, and he spelled out that “this is not a deficiency felt only in this arena”, nevertheless, he enjoined that “it cannot be denied that a vast section of the people in this country is interested in viewing the cricket matches”. Even if one concedes that cricket is indeed popular, would this really transmute the nature of cricket telecast rights as property rights that ought to be subject to market competition?
The cricket telecast rights are typically the property rights over signals to air the cricket matches so that interested viewers may have access to their favourite sport. Do telecasters act in charity? Of course not. When telecasters air the matches, they intersperse them with advertisements of a mélange of products, so that they can earn revenues. In the good old days, when Doordarshan had effective monopoly over telecast of cricket, it took the revenue earning potential of cricket matches rather too seriously. More often than not, Doordarshan used to black out the first and last balls of an over so that it could maximize the time slots available for carrying out advertisements!
Despite being short-changed, why weren’t consumers up in arms against Doordarshan? Besides wielding highly diffused power, there was an absolute lack of choice. The available state of technology acted as a humongous entry barrier and ensured that barring Doordarshan no one else had the wherewithal to carry out telecast of cricket. The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) hands were tied as well – unless matches were accessible to the mass of viewers, they too stood to lose vast sums of their investments.
Things changed with passage of time. By early nineties, technology was sufficiently advanced to ensure that cricket telecast no longer remained dependant upon the magnanimity of Doordarshan. Nonetheless, when BCCI awarded the telecast rights to ESPN, Doordarshan indulged in arm-twisting to thwart nascent competition. Since then, telecast rights of cricket have perpetually remained mired in controversy. The real battle, nevertheless, has shifted to courts who willy-nilly don the mantle of umpires in the game of telecast rights. The latest in the saga is the ongoing India-Pakistan series being played in Pakistan.
Interestingly, a marked improvement in transparency of the tender process has been a remarkable concomitant development. By and large, a level playing field is available. For instance, Doordarshan could have easily bid for telecast rights of the present India-Pakistan series. When they chose not to exercise the option, should the courts, ex post, alter the contract in favour of Doordarshan? An endeavour for acquisition of property rights requires effort, planning and investment. If a rival could undo what a player achieves through superior skill, merely by piggybacking the courts, it would act as a huge disincentive for the players to compete. This hurts the process of competition, which ensures that market rivalry as an organizing principle for economic activity remains robust and effective.
Courts ought to intervene only when overriding public interest is involved. Popularity is hardly the yardstick for public interest. A free access to the blockbuster Rang De Basanti might as well be a popular demand, however, that cannot possibly justify the courts granting rights to Doordarshan to telecast it. When you play the game, you should be prepared to lose. As the clichéd phrase goes, the importance lies in participation. If someone wins, but you refuse to lose, your victory in avoiding loss might be Pyrrhic. In the ensuing cricket series, if no company finds it worthwhile to place a bid and God forbid, Doordarshan’s atavistic instincts reign supreme we might have to bid adieu to first and last balls of an over, superb commentary skills and an in-depth analysis of the game!
posted by Rahul Singh at 11:51 PM
2 Comments:
kya bolun.
sharm aati hai mujhe apne aap pe... :)
Keep it up
Post a Comment
<< Home