Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourer
Thanks mate - that makes complete sense. If that's the case, I guess that should someone have a crack at F1 on an anti-trust basis, then FOM could argue that precedent exists for treating pro sports differently due to broadcasting rights.
|
I think FOM would have a strong case to continue to negotiate broadcast rights (mirroring the exceptions already allowed for US sports), but not collusive exclusion from F1. I expect Andretti/GM have no objections over the broadcast topic. It's the exclusion from the series that is the issue.
Note that the FOM statement pointed out that they did not take into account the team's views on the topic (or something to that wording). I wonder if that was included explicitly to try to shortcut accusations of collusion (i.e. tickling the dragon on anti trust triggers). I personally find it highly unlikely that the decision was made in a vacuum as communicated. Imagine if this was to move into the realm of an anti trust case, do we think there are absolutely zero communications between FOM and the existing teams on this topic with teams expressing their desire to remain "as is". Especially given teams were saying as much publicly? I think it makes a juicy story, but again i am doubtful anything will come of this.
Semi-related... while Googling on this topic, I found articles that call out that the prior exception that bjohnsonsmith calls out may not actually be broadly written enough to cover distribution via streaming services. Not that I think this impacts any of this F1 topic, but I think it shows that the anti-trust issues seem to never be fully settled and it seems to ready to pop up again if the conditions are right.
Richard