Dhanraj Pillai PDF

Competition Commission of India
(Case No.73 of 2011)

Date: 31.05.2013
In the matter of:
Sh. Dhanraj Pillay and Others Informants
And
M/s Hockey India Opposite Party
CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Chawla

Chairperson
Mr. H C Gupta
Member
Mr. R Prasad
Member
Dr. Geeta Gouri

Member
Mr.AnuragGoel
Member
Mr. Justice (Retd.) S N Dhingra

Member
Present: ______________________ for the informants

______________________ for the Opposite Party
Majority Order by Shri Ashok Chawla, Shri H.C. Gupta, Dr. Geeta
Gouri, Shri Anurag Goel and Justice (Retd.) S.N. Dhingra
1. The case was initiated on the basis of information filed by Sh. Dhanraj
Pillay, aformer Olympian and Captain of Indian Hockey Team
against Hockey India (hereinafter “HI”) to the Competition
1
Commission of India (hereinafter “Commission”) under Section
19(1)(a) of The Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter ”Act”) on
November 15, 2011.
2. The case centered on the events leading to the organization of World

Series Hockey League (hereinafter “WSH”) by Indian Hockey
Federation in collaboration with Nimbus Sport. The case pertains to
the alleged imposition of restrictive conditions by HI, on players for
participation in un-sanctioned prospective private professional leagues
resulting in undue restrictions on mobility of players and on
prospective private professional leagues leading to denial of entry to
competing leagues.
3. Parties to the Case and related parties
3.1 The Informants in this case are a group of former Olympians and
professional Indian Hockey players namely Sh. Dhanraj Pillay, Sh.
Gundeep Kumar, Sh. Gurbax Singh Grewal, Sh. Balbir Singh Grewal,
Sh. Alloysius Edwards and Sh. V Baskaran.
3.2 The Opposite Party, Hockey India, is the National Sports Federation
of India for the sport of Hockey affiliated to the Indian Olympic
Association (IOA), Asian Hockey Federation (AHF) and International
Hockey Federation (FIH).
3.3. A related party to HI is FIH. FIH is the international governing body

for the sport of Hockey recognized by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC). FIH is responsible for integrity of the sport at the
international level and to ensure the development of sport throughout
the world.
3.4 Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) is the National Sports Federation

for the sport of Hockey affiliated to Indian Olympic Association, but it
2
is not affiliated to FIH or AHF. IHF is the co-organizer of World
Series Hockey (WSH) League along with Nimbus Sport (Nimbus).
3.5 Nimbus Sport, a subsidiary of Nimbus Communications Ltd., is a

leading full sports rights management and marketing company.
4. Information
4.1 In December 2010, IHF and Nimbus announced the WSH league,
designed and conducted on a franchisee model. The League was to
feature 8 city based teams and players from India and overseas. The
first tournament was scheduled to be organized from November 2011
to February 2012.
4.2 After the announcement of the WSH League, the organizers started
entering into negotiations with players and signing them for the league.
When the process of negotiations was on, the FIH notified regulations
relating to sanctioned and unsanctioned events and communicated the
same to all National Associations vide their letter dated 11th March
2011. These sanctions were to be applied prospectively w.e.f. 31st
March 2011. The informants have stated that FIH and HI also started
making statements prohibiting players from participating in WSH, on
account of it being an unsanctioned event.
4.3 HI adopted the regulations relating to unsanctioned events and

accordingly modified its Code of Conduct (CoC) Agreement with
players to include the clauses related to disciplinary action such as
disqualification from Indian National Team for any participation in
unsanctioned events. In this backdrop, HI along with FIH also
announced that they intended to introduce their own league in India in
2013.
4.4 A month before the scheduled start of the inaugural WSH League, the
informants, based on the above sequence of events made a filing to the
3
Commission for inquiring into alleged anti-competitive activities of
HI.
4.5 Allegations
4.5.1 The specific allegations leveled by the informants are as under:
(i) HI is misusing its regulatory powers and promoting its own
Hockey League at the exclusion of WSH and is engaging in
practices resulting in denial of market access to rivals, in
contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
(ii) HI is using its dominance in conducting international events in
India to enter into the market of conducting a domestic event in
India, in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
(iii) The CoC Agreement entered by HI with the players is an
exclusive supply agreement and the restrictive conditions
included thereunder, constitute a violation of Section 3(4) of the
Act.
The informants made the following submissions in support of

their allegations against HI
4.6 Jurisdiction issue

4.6.1 The informants submitted that HI, which is a society registered under
Societies Registration Act 1860 qualifies to be a person as defined
under Section 2(l)(v) of the Act. Also, the informant submitted that HI
is engaged in activities related to conducting and governing of
international hockey tournaments in India, facilitating sponsorship for
the team, obtaining training facilities etc. According to the informants,
these activities are commercial and HI is an enterprise under section
2(h) of the Act.
4.7 Abuse of dominance

4.7.1 Relevant Market
4
The informants defined the relevant market as, “the market for
conducting and governing international hockey activities for both men
and women in India”. The definition given by informants covered in
their view, both demand and supply side substitutability.
4.7.1.1Demand Side substitutability

The informants submittedthat the hockey players are the consumers of
services rendered by HI and the players do not consider the services of
conducting and governing international hockey activities for men and
women interchangeable with any other service. Consequently,hockey
players are not in a position to shift to a body conducting any other
sport in response to a change in the supply side of the market, which
comprises of HI, as it is the only body conducting and governing
international hockey events in India.
The informants also stated that there is no substitutability between the
conducting and governing of international activities and domestic
activities.
4.7.1.2 Reference was made to the ECJ decisions on the Billiards Case
(Henry v. The World Professional Billiards & Snooker Association Ltd
(WPBSA), [2001 EWCA Civ 1127]) to support their delineation of the
relevant market. In this case it was held:
“The first criterion in deciding whether particular suggested
market is a relevant one for competition law purposes is as to
demand substitutability: is there another product which is a
close substitute in the eyes or purchasers for that which is the
subject of the suggested market? As between snooker players
and tournament promoters, there is clearly no substitute, as far
as the players are concerned, for the services of promoters.
From the point of view of the players, whether one considers
him as seller (of his services) or as buyer (of the services of a
tournament organisers), he is dependent on tournament
5
organisers, since without tournaments he will have no
opportunity to exercise his skills for profit.”
4.7.1.3Supply Side substitutability

As regards supply side substitutability, the informants submitted that
the conduct and governance of activities for a certain sport is a
specialized area of service which involves important responsibilities
and crucial functions by the service provider. Services in relation to
conduct and governance of sport can only be provided by persons with
special expertise and huge sport related resources in their command.
Therefore the supply of services related to conducting and governing
international hockey activities cannot be considered substitutable with
any other service. The informants also clarified that supply
substitutability does not exist between international and domestic
hockey events as provision of services related to international events
require recognition by international Federations and service providers
for domestic events cannot shift to international events in the absence
of such recognition.
4.7.1.4On the issue of geographic marketthe informants submitted that

uniformity in the conditions of CoC agreements with players implies
the market is pan India. On the possibility of extending the the market
beyond the boundaries of India, the informants averred that that
development of the game, requirement of players and factors relevant
for team selection vary from country to country restricting the relevant
market to India.
4.8 Assessment of Dominance

In their submissions the informants have stated that HI is in a dominant
position in the relevant market as defined on account of the following
factors:
i) Monopoly position of HI as a regulatory body for
Hockey in India:Emphasis was laid on the monopoly of HI on
6
account of the pyramid structure of sports governance and
consequent endorsement from FIH as the National Association
for Hockey in India. HI is the only body empowered to select
the national team to represent India in international competition
and to enter into CoC agreements with players. These powers
enable HI to impose restrictive conditions on the players
movements and impose sanctions on players on disciplinary
grounds and is the source of dominance.
ii) Consumer dependence and countervailing buying
power:At the same time it was averred that hockey players
cannot exert any kind of countervailing pressure on HI, given
the sole mandate of selection of Indian National team being
vested with HI. Reference was made to the WPBSA Snooker
case, where it was held that players were heavily dependent on
the services of WPBSA and the decision in Minnesota Made
Hockey, Inc. v. Minnesota Hockey, Inc [-F.Supp. 2d-, 2011
WL 1833102(D.Minn.)] where it was held that absence of
proof of market power does not justify anti-competitive
behaviour.
4.9 Abuse of Dominance

The informants submitted that HI, by not sanctioning WSH (a
domestic event) and prohibiting players from participating in WSH, is
abusing its dominant position in the market for conducting and
governing international hockey events to enter the market for
conducting and governing domestic hockey activities for promoting its
own proposed league. The informants hold that the conditions imposed
by HI are not inherent and proportionate to the legitimate objectives of
sports but are a disproportionate use of its regulatory power for the
objective of promoting its own league, and thereby, excluding others in
contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
7
4..9.1 It was also submitted by the informants that the actions of HI including
warning players, umpires, coaches not to participate in WSH, adopting
regulations related to unsanctioned events and not sanctioning WSH
are meant to secure the market for its own league. HI, by selectively
sanctioning some tournaments in which it has a commercial interest
and stake, over those organized by others, is making it virtually
impossible for competent organizers to stage an event.Furthermore the
informants submitted that, hockey players are also being denied an
opportunity to compete, and develop themselves, as well as make a
career out of playing the sport. Thus, the actions of HI constitute
practices leading to denial of market access to new sport organizers,
players and sponsors and broadcasters in contravention of Section
4(2)(c) of the Act.
4.9.2 Reference was made to the decision in Ice Hockey case by Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)(Australian Ice
Hockey Federation Notification No.N94049, dated 02nd March 2010,
Public Register No. C2009/1391, Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission) where it was noted that the power of IHA to
expel or suspend members of the IHA for participating in unsanctioned
events would not only restrict the number of leagues in the market and
the overall consumer choice but would also affect the choices available
to Ice Hockey players.
4.10 Anticompetitive agreements: Violation of Section 3(4)

According to the informants, the CoC agreement which is entered into
between HI and the players is a vertical agreement and is in the nature
of an exclusive supply agreement as it exclusively ties down the player
to HI and restricts their options to participate in other tournaments.
4.10.1 All Hockey players that sign the CoC agreement are entirely dependent
on HI‟s approval to play in any event. HI is in a position to refuse
permission even if there is no conflict in the schedule of such event
8
when it is the duty of a player to represent India in an international
tournament. Specific clauses of CoC Agreement related to seeking of
NOC, disciplinary actions against the players were pointed out to
bring out the alleged exclusivity.
4.10.2 The informants also submitted that this agreement causes appreciable
adverse effect on competition in India as it creates barriers to entry for
new players into the relevant market and drives existing competitors
out of the market with no benefits accruing to the players as a result of
such restrictive conditions in theCoCagreement. The informants
highlighted some of the merits of tournaments such as WSH for the
players‟ viz. source of remuneration, source of practice and training,
and, development of infrastructure.
On the basis of these arguments, the informants alleged contravention

of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act.
4.11 Relief sought
The informant prayed that the Commission may:
1. direct that the CoC agreement be modified to the extent that it
is in contravention of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(4) of the
Act.
2. direct that HI discontinue their practice of abusing their
dominant position in the market for governing and conducting
of international hockey events in India which is in
contravention of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2) (c) and
4(2) (e) of the Act, by engaging in conduct which includes:
a) Warning hockey players with non-selection into the
Indian national team if they participate in the WSH and/
or if they sign the player‟s contract;
b) Warning hockey players with disciplinary action if they
participate in the WSH and /or if they sign the player‟s
contract.
9
3. direct HI and FIH acting through HI to publish a scheduled
calendar of international events including training in
preparatory camps thereof, one year in advance and having
published the same direct that they do not amend it without
giving atleast a minimum of 180 days‟ notice.
4. impose the highest penalty on HI for contravening section 3
and 4 of the Act
5. pass any other order that the CCI deems fit.
5. Prima Facie Order of the Commission

The Commission, upon examination of the facts of the information,
passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act, on February 09, 2012
recording its opinion that there exists a prima facie case, and directed
the Director General (hereinafter “DG”) to investigate into the matter.
6. Application for interim relief
The informants requested the Commission to pass an interim order
under section 33 of the Competition Act restraining HI from abusing
its dominant position and entering into anti- competitive agreements.
However, the Commission was of the opinion that there is no
irreparable or irretrievable harm to the players and the application
filed by informants under section 33 was declined.
7. DG Investigation Report
The DG investigated the following key issues pertaining to the case:
i. jurisdictionof the Commission on HI and FIH and the
application of competition laws.
ii. delineation of the relevant market in the case
iii. assessment of dominance in the relevant market.
iv. allegations related to violation of Section 4 of the Act
v. allegations related to anti-competitive agreements in violation
of Section 3 of the Act.
On the basis of investigation carried out, the findings of DG are as
under:
10
7.1 Jurisdiction on HI and FIH and application of competition
laws.
7.1.1 On the issue of jurisdiction of the Commission the DG in his
report has observed that, while it is true that HI and FIH are
non-profit organizations, however, the activities carried out by
the HI as well as FIH such as grant of franchisee rights, media
rights, television rights, sponsorship rights, and all other rights,
involves generation of revenue and has a commercial
component to it. Such activities have to be seen differently from
the „ not-for-profit‟ nature of certain other activities of HI and
FIH.The prime objectives of these activities is to maximize
revenues and these activities are executed through agreements
that are commercial. The HI and FIH, are hence squarely
covered within the meaning of the inclusive definition of
“person” contained in the Act. Moreover these activities are
also not covered under „exceptions‟ as mentioned in the
definition of an enterprise. The activities that enjoy exception
for the purpose of the Act arerelated to atomic energy, currency,
defence or space. Therefore, the economic activities carried out
to organize the game of Hockey by HI and FIHcannot be
excluded from the definition of an “enterprise” as contained in
the Act.
7.1.2 In arriving at his conclusions regarding HI and FIH being recognized

as an “enterprise” for the purpose of the Act, the DG also considered
the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Hemant Sharma &Ors V.
Union of India &Anr (Source-W.P.(C)5770/2011 decided by Delhi
High Court)where while disposing the writ petition the Hon‟ble court
has considered the Chess Federation as an enterprise within the
meaning of the provisions of section 2(h) of the Act. Thus, the
observation of the Hon‟ble High Court is also applicable in the instant
case in as much as the HI and FIH are also placed on the similar
circumstanced position as of the All India Chess Federation because
11
both are the paramount sports bodies in their respective fields, having
the international recognition.
7.1.3 On the issue of extra territorial jurisdiction of the Act over FIH, DG
stated that as per Section 2 (l), the definition of “person” includes an
association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated
or not, in India or outside India. The DG also referred to Section 32 of
the Competition Act, whereby Commission has been empowered to
examine the agreements or abuse of dominant position or combination
if such agreement or dominant position is likely to have an appreciable
adverse effect on competition in the relevant market in India. Based on
the definition of person and scope of Section 32, it has been concluded
in the DG reportthat FIH falls well within the ambit of Competition
Act.
7.2 Delineation and defining Relevant Market

7.2.1 On the aspect of delineation of relevant market, DG agreed with the
informants that given the facts of the case, hockey players are the
consumers of services rendered by HI. Accordingly, DG considered
the supply side substitutability from the viewpoint of HI and demand
side substitutability from the view point of Hockey players to define
the relevant market.
7.2.2 The DG report recognizes that the conduct and governance of

activities for a certain sport is a specialised area of service which
involves important responsibilities and crucial functions by service
provider. Conducting and governing international hockey activities in
India constitute a separate and unique service market and the supply of
such service cannot be considered substitutable or interchangeable with
any other service.
12
7.2.3 The market for conducting and governing international hockey is
different from market for conducting and governing domestic hockey
activities because conducting international hockey activities require
fulfilment of additional conditions in form of recognition by
international sporting associations such as FIH etc.
7.2.4 The DG has observed in his report that the Indian hockey players who
are the primary beneficiaries of the services rendered in relation to
conduct and governance of international hockey activities, constitute
the demand side.
7.2.5 It has also been observed thathockey players cannot shift to a body
conducting any other sport in response to change in the supply side of
the market, where HI is responsible for conducting and governing
hockey events. The DG also stated that these conditions are different
for international and domestic hockey events. Hockey players desirous
of playing for the national hockey team at international events cannot
avail the services of a body conducting and governing domestic hockey
activities.
7.2.6 On the basis of supply and demand side substitutability as examined

above, DG found, that the sport of hockey cannot be substituted by any
other sport andhence concluded that the market for “conducting and
governing domestic and international hockey activities for both men
and women and the underlying economic activities in India”
constitutes the relevant market as per the provisions of section 2(r) of
the Act.
7.3 Assessment of dominance in the relevant market.
7.3.1 By the virtue of HI being a National Association and as a
consequence of the regulatory powers vested with HI, the DG has
observed in his report that HI is the sole body responsible for
conducting and governing all hockey activities and enjoys monopoly
powers in team selection, organizing of international events etc. The
13
DG also considered the imposition of restrictive conditions on players
through the CoC Agreementas evidence of the strength of HI to
affect its consumers (players) in its favour. In this context, a reference
to USjudgement has been made by the DG. It was a case involving
Minnesota Hockey Association ( Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. V
Minnesota Hockey, Inc., Civil No.10-3884(JRT/JJK), United States
District Court, District of Minnesota) affiliated to United States
Olympic Committee, where it was held,
“Given the unique status of defendants as an organization
under the auspices of the USOC, Supreme Court precedent
involving similar sporting entities, such as the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, is instructive. The Supreme
Court has noted that the NCAA‟s role “in the regulation of
amateur collegiate sports” has rendered it such a powerful
player in areas that touch collegiate sports that “the absence of
proof of market power does not justify” anti-competitive
behaviour.”
7.3.2 To DG, it wasthe pyramidal structure that leads to creation of

regulatory barriers which constrain entry in the relevant market as
defined. Equally important fallout of these regulatory powers of HI is
that, the hockey players who are the consumers and constitute the
demand side of the market, are not in any position to exert
countervailing pressures on HI, primarily because of the sole mandate
of HI to select the members of Indian National Hockey Team. On the
aspect of position of strength of National Associations‟ vis a vis the
players, DG referred to the judgement cited by the informants in the
Snooker case, where WPBSA was the regulatory body for professional
Snooker where it was held,
“From the point of view of the player, whether one considers

him as seller (of his services) or as buyer (of the services of a
tournament organizer), he is dependent on tournament
14
organizers, since without tournaments he will have no
opportunity to exercise his skills for profit. Equally a
tournament organizer depends on players, since the players are
the essential basic ingredient of the tournament. However,
whereas a tournament organizer would have skills and
resources that could be applied to other activities, snooker
players are not likely to have transferable skills.”
7.4 Analysis of abuse of dominance
7.4.1 After concluding the dominance of HI, the DG examined the

allegations levelled by the informants against HI pertaining to
contravention of Section 4 of the Act. The allegations investigated are
as under:
i) foreclosure of market to prospective organizers for the

organization of domestic hockey events by HI through the
introduction of rules related to sanctioned and unsanctioned
events.
ii) prohibition of players from participation in domestic hockey

events organized by competitors of HI, through the terms and
conditions included in CoC agreement entered into with
Hockey players.
7.4.2 Foreclosure of market to competing organizers of hockey events
7.4.2.1On examination of the facts the DG found that the rules relating to
sanctioned and unsanctioned events were introduced in March 2011,
after the announcement of WSH. This delayed introduction was
considered to be an afterthought on the part of FIH and HI to eliminate
the danger of breaking their monopoly and control over the game of
hockey. The DG in his report asserts that the chronology of events
after the announcement of WSH tournament clearly shows that HI and
FIH pressurized NIMBUS to either join them or face the consequences
of non-participation by the current national team players.
15
7.4.2.2The perusals of these rules and regulationsclearly reveal that the
intention of FIH and HI was to prevent the hockey players from
participating in WSH. The DG has further held that the rules for
domestic events were deliberately categorized into two categories:one,
where only domestic national level players participate, and another
where players of other countries also participate. TheDG in his report
hasmentioned that in football or cricket it is very common that players
from different countries participate in the domestic league organized at
a national level. Thus in WSH also there would have been no problem
if the players from different countries were allowed to participate.
7.4.2.3The DG held WSH to be a domestic event which was approved by one

of the national associations for hockey in India, the IHF, and observed
that the action of HI and the FIH to prevent the national hockey players
to play WSH series by issuing a warning letter and forfeiting their right
to play in a national hockey team for a period of 12 months is anti-
competitive in violations of the provisions of the Act.
7.4.2.4Based on the statement of Sh. Dhanraj Pillay and the information

provided by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports vide their letter
dated 05.06.2012, the DG concluded that the Indian Hockey Team
which went to London to play 4 nation test matches and 7 nation Azlan
Shah hockey tournament in Malaysia, did not include any of the
players who participated in WSH. Similarly the Junior team also have
not taken any player, who had participated in the WSH.
7.4.2.5In light of the above mentioned facts, DG concluded, that HI acting

through FIH has abused its dominance to maintain their control over
hockey sports in India. They have restricted players to participate in
any match or event which is not sanctioned by them. Their conduct
has also resulted in foreclosure of market for any other enterprise to
organize hockey tournaments. It has not resulted in any benefit or
advantage to the hockey and hockey players as well as consumers and
spectators in any manner whatsoever.DG also noted that HI& FIH had
a plan of launching hockey leagues in India on the similar lines of
16
WSH. The actions of HIwere to ensure that the hockey players are
restricted to its ownhockey event and by imposing restrictive
conditions denied market access to the players.Based on the aforesaid,
DG held that the conduct of HIis in contravention of the provisions of
section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Act.
7.5 CoC Agreement and Restraints on Players
7.5.1 The allegation that the CoC Agreement of HI and hockey players
included terms and conditions on players participation in domestic
events organized by those other than HI was next examined by DG.
DG took note of the changes in Bye laws by FIH relating to role of a
national association with respect to participation of players, officials
etc. in unsanctioned events and an email from FIH to the General
Secretaries of the all the national associations of hockey dated
04.05.2012 with a suggestion that the executive board would
recommend that, other than in exceptional circumstances, any person
who participated in the „World Series Hockey‟ event held in February
– April 2012 should be deemed to have forfeited his eligibility to
participate in international events (i.e. events involving national
representative team) for a minimum of 12 months, starting from
31.03.2012.
7.5.2 In the background of above, HI included certain conditions in its CoC

Agreement in September 2011 which read as
 Disciplinary action shall be taken against any player or official
who participates in any event which is not sanctioned by
Hockey India.
 Players and Officials are required to obtain a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from Hockey India before playing for any
foreign team/club etc. other than Hockey India or their
registered Member Unit.”
17
7.5.3 The DG noted that, for obtaining a NOC from HI, no time frame has
been fixed and rather it has been stipulated that an application for no
objection certificate pursuant to this may not be deemed granted unless
and until written approval isissued by the HI.
7.5.4 The DG also took note of MoYAS statement. MoYAS in its reply had
observed that in the camp held at Bangalore for preparation and
selection of Indian team after the WSH series, none of those players,
who participated in the WSH series were included in the 48 core
probables. Further, the Indian team which went to London to play four
nation test matches and seven nations Azlan Shah Hocke tournament
in Malaysia, none of the players who participated in the WSH, and
junior players who had participated in WSH were included in the
squad.
7.5.5 The DG further observes that theCoC signed by the hockey players
required the HI approval to play in any event by way of NOC. As such
the pre-condition of not allowing the top hockey players to play
unsanctioned event on a threat of not taking them into the national
hockey team selected to play international Olympic match is unfair and
without any justification, places restrictive conditions on hockey
players in India. Further, the action of the HI of not taking any player
in the national team who had played WSH in 2012 substantiates the
allegation of the IP.
7.5.6 The DG also concluded that, by virtue of the powers vested in the HI
vis-à-vis the selection of the national team, HI is able to determine the
tournaments in which the players can participate and the tournaments
in which they cannot. It is obvious that hockey tournaments are only
possible when adequate numbers of players are willing to participate in
them. Without the consent of HI, players are effectively prohibited
from participating in any event, even if the event is of a world class
quality and standard, and vital for their development, remuneration and
training, and do not conflict with their national team obligations. In
18
effect, by using its position as the sole selector of the Indian hockey
team and by virtue of its dominance in the market for conduct and
governance of hockey activities in India, HI can restrain the market for
conduct of domestic hockey activities in India, as it is the sole body
which can exercise this power. This gives them a significant advantage
over other organizers such as IHF and enables them to leverage their
dominant position in one market to protect their position in another
market.
7.5.7 Thus, according to DG, the act of the OP for restricting the players to
play hockey in unsanctioned events organized by the recognized
association sport (IHF) and not issuing No Objection Certificate
(NOC) as well as not including their name in the 48 probables for the
camp held at Bangalore for preparation and selection of Indian team
which went to London to play 4 nation test match etc. is in
contravention of Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition
Act.
Contravention of Section 3 of the Act
7.6 The allegation leveled by the informant that the CoC agreement
entered into between HI and players wasin contravention of Section
3(4) of the Act was then examined by the DG. Another aspect that was
also examined was the decision of FIH and HI decision to ban WSH
and whether this conduct attracts the provisions of Section 3(3) of the
Act. The DG findings on the two issues are as under.
Whether the Code of conduct signed between HI and Players attracts

the provisions of section 3(4)?
7.6.1 The DG observedthat the relationship between HI and Players are not
on the footing of distribution or production chain as provided in
section 3(4) of the Act on the following grounds:
19
a) the players are not contracted by HI as professional player to
play for the national team.
b) no match fee or retainer-ship fee is given to the players by HI
to players for representing the national team.
c) there is no system of a regular employment or engagement of
players by HI.
d) no commercial relationship whatsoever is existing between
players and HI at present.
The lack of commercial relationship between HI and players nullified

the application of Sec 3(4)of the Act and the allegation of
contravention of this section.
Whether the decision of FIH & HI to impose ban on WSH attracts

provisions of section 3(3) of the Act?
7.6.2 The DG stated that the recommendations made by an association are
deemed to be arrangement between the members of the association and
are covered under the definition of agreement as contained in the Act.
7.6.2.1 It was found that the decision regarding sanctioned and unsanctioned
events was taken during the meeting of its executive body during 4th-
6thMarch 2011. Article 18 of the FIH Statute provides the method of
amendment or modification in the bye-laws. Article 18 of Statues and
Bye-laws of FIH says that
 these statutes may be amended added to or rescinded by a
resolution of the Congress passed by a special majority.
 no such resolution shall be submitted to the Congress
unless the prior notice prescribed by the Bye-laws has
been given to all NAs.
 any modification of the statutes must be proposed by a
member or by the executive Board.
20
 the proposal must reach the CEO not later than three (3)
months before the date fixed for the ordinary meeting of
the Congress.
7.6.2.2 DG concluded that in this case it appears that the amendment made by
FIH regarding sanctioned and unsanctioned events were not done in
accordance with the provisions of Article 18, as it was done in haste to
counter the forth coming WSH series only. The executive body
comprises of the representatives of various national associations.
7.6.2.3 DG noted that the FIH is a body comprising of 127 member national
associations‟ including Hockey India. All these associations including
HI are engaged in identical market or provisions of services i.e.
governing the Hockey sports in their respective territory. The executive
body of FIH is elected from these members only. Thus the regulations
and decision of FIH governing its members will be treated as
horizontal agreement falling under the definition of section 3(3) of the
Act.
7.6.2.4 According to the DG, these Bye laws give full authority to FIH for
sanctioning all the international events as well as the domestic events
where players from different countries participate. These Bye laws do
not allow sanctioning any domestic event which is not organized by
body other than the national association. Thus by way of these Bye
laws no sanctioned tournament whatsoever, domestic or international
can be organized at any level by any enterprise who is not a member of
FIH.Further, if a player wishes to participate in an unsanctioned
tournament he will have to obtain a NOC from his national association.
The Bye laws also lay down the factors to be considered by the
national association by granting NOCs to the players. A perusal of
these factors show that in normal circumstances it may not be possible
for any player to obtain NOC for participation in an unsanctioned
tournament.
21
7.6.2.5 Based on the above facts, the DG concluded that decision of FIH and
HI infringes the provisions of section 3 of the Act. Its decision to not
allow and not cooperate with any event which is not proposed or
organized by the members of FIH amounts to contravention of section
3(3) (b) of the Act. Its activities have resulted in restriction in the
market. The Association collectively decided not to have any dealing
with a person who does not agree with the directions of the
Association. Thus based on the practice of non-cooperation and
imposition of ban on WSH is found to be in contravention of section
3(3) (b) of the Act. Its conduct ultimately impedes competition in the
market.
7.6.2.6As per the DG, the inquiries revealed that the opposite party and FIH
has taken decisions as well as given directions to its members to not
deal with WSH. The activities of any association should not be
intended to restrain competition or to harm consumers. But, the
purpose of the association should be to promote competition and to
benefit consumers. Neither the association nor any of its committees or
activities should be used for the purpose of bringing about or
attempting to bring about any understanding or agreement, written or
oral, formal or informal, express or implied, between and among
competitors with regard to their prices, terms or conditions of sale,
distribution, volume of production, territories, customers, or credit
terms. Each member of the association is obligated and required to
exercise its independent business judgment in pricing its services or
products, dealing with its customers and suppliers, and choosing the
markets in which it will compete. No activity or communication of the
association or any of its members, in connection with their
participation in the association, shall include any discussion or
statement which could reasonably be construed as an agreement or
understanding among members to refrain, or to encourage other
members to refrain, from purchasing any raw materials, product,
22
equipment, services or other supplies from any supplier or from
dealing with any supplier. Further, the conduct of FIH and HI clearly
shows that they are exercising their authority to regulate entries and
exits in the Hockey sport. Thus, realizing that the association has the
authority to boycott and penalize, members obey the directions and
orders of the Association.
7.6.2.7 The decision of FIH and HI regarding sanctioned and unsanctioned

events has the elements of potential competitive harms which may
restrict freedom of trade in the market. When seen under the conditions
of Section 19(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, these conducts do not
bring any efficiency or any other possible defence for imposing such
conditions/decisions on its members. The decisions of boycott or non-
cooperation by Associations cannot be justified in the garb of
maintaining integrity in the sport of Hockey. Imposition of ban on
WSH or similar events has not resulted in promotion or development
of Hockey.
7.6.2.8 The above mentioned facts clearly show that the decision taken by FIH
in consultation with its members including HI is anti-competitive in
nature and hence, in violation of the provisions of section 3(3) (b) of
the Act since it restricts any other person except its members to
organize any event of Hockey in India. It also imposes restriction on
players, and technical staff to participate in the events not organized by
the member of FIH.
7.6.2.9 In view of the discussion in foregoing paras, the DG established that

the decision of FIH and HI regarding sanctioned and unsanctioned
event is anti-competitive and violate the provisions of section 3(3)(b)of
the Act.
8. Submissions of HI and FIH
23
8.1 HI and FIH made separate submissions on issues concerning them.
However, on certain issues such as jurisdiction and abuse of
dominance, their submissions were on common ground and similar in
approach. The important points made by opposite parties on each
aspect of DG‟s investigation are as under:
8.2 Jurisdiction
8.2.1 HI and FIH stated that their activities fall outside the scope of the
Competition Act, 2002. It was submitted that both FIH and HI are
acting as a custodian of sport which is a public good, promoting the
public interest by organizing, governing and regulating the sport in the
way that will allow it to flourish. It was also stated that sports
governing bodies are not a commercial enterprise working for profit to
generate a return for investors, and its organizational, governance and
regulatory role is not an economic activity.
8.2.2 The issue of „specificities of sport‟ recognized in number of cases by

the European Court of Justice and European Commission was also
raised. Emphasis was placed on the fact, that given the specificities of
sport, the competition law must be applied with sufficient flexibility to
take account of the unique features inherent in sports that distinguish it
from other sectors.
8.2.3 The parties cited the decisions of EC in cases such as Walrave ( Case
36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405) , Deliege ( Case C-
191/97 Deliège[2000] ECR), Meca Medina (Case C-519/04 P, David
Meca Medina and Igor Majcen V. Commission of the European
Communities), which have considered that competition laws should not
stop sports Federations issuing regulations required for proper
organization and conduct of the sport, so long as the restrictive side
effects of those regulations are inherent in and proportionate to the
achievement of that objective.
24
8.2.4 FIH submitted that the objectives underlying the regulations in the
given case are clear, transparent, and entirely proper and legitimate: (i)
to protect the integrity of the sport, and the public's confidence in the
ability of its governing bodies to take any action necessary to
safeguard that integrity; and (ii) to ensure that due priority is given in
the sporting calendar to international events (i.e. events between teams
representing different nations), because such events are the lifeblood of
the sport, the driver of the popular interest in the sport that is essential
to its long-term health.
8.2.5 As regardsthe jurisdiction of the Act over FIH, in addition to the

„specificities of sport‟ and „non-economic activities‟ arguments as
claimed above, that it is an international sports federation founded
under Swiss law and with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland and is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and in particular the
Commission does not have power to require it to provide information.
8.3 Relevant Market Definition

8.3.1 HI in response to the DG Report submitted that no relevant market can
be identified as HI does not provide any product or service within the
meaning of the Act. HI also stated that DG has failed to identify the
consumer, and the informants and Hockey players cannot be regarded
as consumers. In support of their argument HI made reference to the
National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission judgement in the
case of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) v. Ruchika Jain(Source-III (2006)
CPJ 343 NC decided on 07thJuly 2006), where it held,
“In our view, a student who appears in the examination
conducted by the University cannot be held to be a consumer as
defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 2(1)(o). Such a
person does not hire or avail of the services of University or the
Board for consideration.”
25
8.3.2 HI stated that it exercised its regulatory role and not an economic
function with respect to selection of the national team and training of
sportsmen and other activities undertaken for the development of the
sport.
8.3.3 On the issue of Relevant Geographic Market, HI submitted that WSH
is an international event and Nimbus intended to broadcast the event
worldwide and therefore the relevant geographic market cannot be pan
India.
8.4 Assessment of Dominance
8.4.1 HI submitted that the pyramid structure for regulation and organisation
of competitive sport is vital and in line with established sport structure.
HI as the National Association of India, is entrusted with upholding the
values enshrined in the Olympic Charter. The sole purpose and
function of sports governing bodies such as HI is to act as custodian of
the sport in promoting the public interest by organizing, governing and
regulating the sport in the way that will allow it to flourish. It stated
that regulatory functions cannot be assessed against the yardstick of
market forces.
8.4.2 As regards DG‟s findings on regulatory powers being the source of

dominance, HI submitted that the responsibility of sanctioning sports
events being held in their country and involving players of that
nationality comes from the unique nature of governance of organized
sport and having and exercising such regulatory authority does not in
itself result in abuse of dominant position.
8.4.3 Moreover, HI cannot be held to be in a position of dominance as it is

not a sanctioning authority for an event of the nature of WSH. As
WSH involved players from multiple nationalities and different
continents, sanction was required from each Continental Federation
and FIH.
26
8.4.4 Based on above submissions, HIcontended that conclusion of its
dominance, based upon the pyramid structure of sports governance, is
incorrect.
8.5 Allegations of Abuse of Dominance
The following submissions were made by FIH:
(i) On the Pyramid Structure
8.5.1 FIH submitted that the governance of the sport of hockey is organised
in a pyramid structure. The pyramid governance structure is
mandatory within the Olympic movement and is necessary to protect
and promote the sport. The most significant merits of pyramid
structure are ensuring integrity of the sport, proper organisation and
conduct of sporting calendar, ensuring primacy of national
representative competition, etc.
8.5.1.1There can only be one team representing a nation, and therefore there
can only be one national association organising national representative
teams. Similarly, there can only be one world 'champion', and therefore
those national associations can only recognise one international
Federation. Therefore, 'one sport, one international Federation' and
'one country, one national association' are principles inherent in and
essential to the organisation of competitive sport.
(ii) On the application of competition laws
8.5.2 FIH referred to the experience of ECJ and the European Commission
and submitted that the competition laws do not stop sports federations
issuing regulations required for the 'organisation and proper conduct
of competitive sport', so long as any restrictive side-effects of those
regulations are inherent in and proportionate to the achievement of that
objective. Thus FIH submitted to consider the inherence and
proportionality of the restrictive condition to the achievement of
sporting objectives before concluding on violation of competition laws.
27
(iii) On the justification behind regulation related to sanctioned and
unsanctioned events.
8.5.3 FIH submitted that the objectives underlying the Regulations are clear,
transparent, and entirely proper and legitimate: (i) to protect the
integrity of the sport, and the public's confidence in the ability of its
governing bodies to take any action necessary to safeguard that
integrity; and (ii) to ensure that due priority is given in the sporting
calendar to international events (i.e. events between teams representing
different nations).
8.5.3.1FIH also clarified that the rules requiring participants in official

('sanctioned') events not to participate in unofficial ('unsanctioned')
events are inherent in and indispensable to the proper organisation and
conduct of competitive sport. It was submitted that unsanctioned
events threaten to undermine the sporting imperatives on account of:
(a) Unsanctioned events are not developed as an integrated part of

the official sporting calendar and thereby create potential
conflicts between different stake holders that could be
damaging to the sport.
(b) Organisers, participants of unsanctioned events are not

accountable for compliance with rules and regulations of the
sport, and pose a significant risk to sport as the public is
unlikely to appreciate the distinction between unsanctioned and
sanctioned events.Any problem associated or arising in with
the unsanctioned events would cause damage to the reputation
of the entire sport.
(c) Private entrepreneurs are concerned with generating returns on

their investment and will cut across the official frame work and
lure the players away from national representative competition,
which is the life blood of any sport.
28
(d) A private entrepreneur is able to pay more prize money to
professional players as it does not have to share the revenues
with the grass roots of the sport.
(e) €Lack of any restrictive condition regarding participation of

players in unsanctioned events could lead to the private
entrepreneurs free riding on investment made by official bodies
working for development of the sport.
(f) From the players‟ point of view, movement to an unsanctioned

event that benefits him constitute a breach of duty of solidarity
that he owes to the sport.
8.5.3.2FIH also justified the regulations on grounds that these regulations do

not deny market access to third party entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs,
who want their events to be sanctioned events, need only to obtain the
requisite sanction from the relevant authority. Thus there is no ban on
any organiser who is not a member of FIH or HI from organising an
event; instead it requires the organizer to seek sanction for holding the
event which shall be considered as per the provision contained in
regulation (4) of Bye lawsto Article (5) of FIH regulations
(iv) On the allegations by informants on WSH being a domestic

tournament and application for sanction
8.6.1 The depiction of 'World Series Hockey' as simply a 'domestic' event by

the informants FIH considers as deliberately misleading. Nimbus has
sought to derive profits by inviting not only the leading Indian players
but also leading overseas players to participate in its 'World Series
Hockey' event. And that means other national associations (not just
Hockey India) are faced with the loss of their key players to events
over which they have no control, held during periods when they may
want those players to participate in or to prepare for (or to rest in
preparation for) those international events. In other words, their ability
to prioritise the interests of the national representative team, and so
29
their ability to develop the sport in their countries through the success
of their national teams (a matter in which Nimbus has no interest), are
completely undermined.
8.6.2 FIH added that an act for refusal of sanction, actuated by reasons that
are anti-competitive in nature, without countervailing considerations,
may be determined to be anti-competitive, but in the instant case,
Nimbus never applied to FIH for sanction of WSH. FIH referred to the
communications with WSH to highlight its position on the issue.
(v) On the regulations being aimed to counter WSH
8.7.1 FIH defended its regulations by stating that even though the
regulations were issued after the announcement of WSH, yet they were
applied prospectively and the players/ officials who entered into
binding agreements with WSH before 31 March 2011 were not to be
acted against. When FIH announced the regulations, it is stated that
these are not to put off outside interest and investment, rather the aim
is protecting the integrity and long term interest of the sport and to
ensure that athletes give precedence to participation in national
representative teams over other events. The regulations are not limited
to India, they are applied to all 120+ countries where FIH has
members.
(vi) On the harm to WSH caused by regulations
8.8.1 FIH submitted that all the 160+ players who signed for Nimbus prior
to 11 March 2011 were able to play in the inaugural edition of WSH
with impunity. Furthermore Nimbus was able to sign more players
between 11 March 2011(the date on which regulations were issued)
and 31 March 2011(the date on which regulations came into effect).
The fact that the contracts signed were multi-year also protected the
WSH.
(vii) On the issue of threatening players against participation in

WSH
30
8.9.1 FIH submitted that the evidence presented for the alleged threats of
players being banned for their participation in WSH is in form of
newspaper reports, which cannot be considered as evidence. Neither
FIH nor HI took any legal action to try to prevent player signing a
contract or honouring his contract with Nimbus at any point. FIH
added that the proof comes from the fact that Nimbus was able to stage
its event with more than 160 players, it had contracted.
8.9.2 On the issue that HI did not select any player for the Indian team who
played in WSH, FIH stated that as it understands, HI selected its
national team from players who attended its training camps. Certain
players, who decided to play in World Series Hockey rather than in a
previously scheduled training camp, could not be considered for
national team selection.
9. HI made the following submissions on DG‟s findings relating to abuse

of dominance
9.1 HI in their submissions stressed upon the specificities of the sports

sector, the pyramidal structure of sports governance to highlight that
the competition laws cannot be applied to this sector as are applied to
commercial enterprises. On the basis of specificities of the sports and
regulatory nature of activities, HI challenged the jurisdiction of the
Competition Act. The substance of submissions made was in line with
submission of FIH as detailed above.
The submissions of HI on specific anti-competitive practices as alleged

are as under:
(i) On the Issue of adopting the FIH Bye laws related to

sanctioned and unsanctioned events.
9.2.1 HI in their submissions maintained that the Olympic Charter mandates

that in order to be eligible for participation in the Olympics, “a
competitor, coach, trainer or other team official must comply with the
Olympic Charter, including the conditions of eligibility established by
the IOC, as well as the rules of the International Federation (IF)
31
concernedas approved by the IOC, and the competitor, coach, trainer
or other team official must be entered by his NOC.” It is therefore,
essential for every National Association (NA) to comply with the rules
of the concerned IF. In India, Hockey India is the NA affiliated to FIH.
In order to maintain its affiliation to FIH, and consequently for India to
field its team in international events, it is necessary for Hockey India to
comply with all rules and regulations of FIH. Failure to comply with
FIH rules by any NA could result in consequences that include
suspension or expulsion, thereby precluding India from participating in
international events, including events such as the Olympics, Asian
Games and Commonwealth Games.
9.2.2 Article 5.4 of the FIH Bye laws(as on 31.03.2011) provides for
sanctioned and unsanctioned events. “Domestic Events” have been
defined as events that do not involve national representative teams,
while “International Events” are events where national representative
teams compete and include multisport events such as the Olympics,
Commonwealth Games and Asian Games.
9.2.3 The sanctioning authority for Domestic Events depends on whether the
event involves athletes from other countries/continents. If a Domestic
Event involves participation of more than one National Association‟s
team and/or athlete, and/or would be staged by one National
Association in another National Association‟s territory or in more than
one National Association‟s territory, then in order for the said event to
be recognised as a Sanctioned Event the conditions are:
a) If the event is open to only teams and/or athletes in
Membership of or affiliated to National Associations within
one Continental Federation, and the event would be staged
entirely within that continent, then it must be sanctioned by the
relevant Continental Federation.
b) If the event is open to teams and/or athletes in membership of
or affiliated to national associations from different continental
32
federations, and the event would be staged outside of team‟s
continent, then it must be sanctioned by the relevant
Continental Federation and by the FIH.
9.2.4 HI also clarified that WSH, being a league involving players from 7
countries and 5 continents, requires the approval of each concerned
Continental Federation and the FIH. HI is only authorized to sanction
domestic events involving teams in membership of or affiliated to one
National Association and where the event would be staged entirely
within that National Associations territory, and then in order for that
event to be recognised as a Sanctioned event, it must be organised or
sanctioned by the relevant National Association.International events
can only be sanctioned as per FIH rules by the relevant Continental
Federation and/or FIH depending on the circumstances. National
associations have no authority and play no role in the process of
sanctioning International Events.
(ii) On the issue of non-selection of players who played in WSH for

representing Indian team at the Olympics
9.3.1 HI stated that the selection of 48 probables for the Olympics qualifiers
was through a series of selection camps starting with a pool of 96
players. This pool was shortlisted to 32 players after the camp held on
03.12.2011. The selectors were Mr.Harbinder Singh and Mr.Dilip
Tirkey, both former Olympians and two government observers. The
entire selection process was video recorded as mandated by the
Government. The list of 48 probables was released on 25.02.2012 and
WSH started on 29.02.2012. Hence, the question of penalizing the
players does not arise.
9.3.2 On a related issue of change of dates of the training camps with WSH,
HI submitted that the training calendar for the Indian team was
prepared and submitted to Sports Authority of India almost a year in
advance, well before the announcement of WSH. The schedule for the
preparation camp of the Olympic qualifiers was submitted to the Sports
33
Authority of India in early 2011 and was approved by Ministry of
Youth and Sports on 07.03.2011. The dates for the preparatory camp
were recorded in these minutes as 15th December 2011 to 06th January
2012 and from 16th January 2012 till the Olympics qualifier.
On DG‟s findings of refusal of sanction to WSH
9.4.1 HI submitted that no sanction was sought by the organizers of WSH

from HI, and therefore HI had no occasion to refuse such a sanction. It
was further submitted that HI is not a sanctioning authority for such an
event.
Allegations of contravention of Section 3 of the Act.
9.5.1 On the aspect of DG Report, that the adoption of FIH Bye laws by HI
amount to an anti-competitive agreement under section 3(3)(b) of the
Act
The submissions of HI and FIH on this matter are given below.
9.5.2 HI submitted that it has not taken any action against players who
participated in WSH. All players that attended the requisite camps
were considered for selection. HI also stated that, Bye laws cannot be
termed as agreement u/s 3 of the Act as there is no „concurrence of
wills‟. Bye laws are a decision taken by the Executive Board of FIH
and not all its members (including HI) are represented on the
Executive Board. There is hierarchy between FIH and HI, which
means the functions of FIH and HI are at variance from one another
and cannot be said as identical, which is a requirement of Section 3(3).
9.5.3 As regards the contention that the Bye laws were inherently anti-
competitive, HI submitted that their actions in maintaining the primacy
of national representative sport, promotes public interest in the game.
This interest is the backbone of success of private commercial leagues
such as WSH.No „harm‟ has been identified by DG, DG has talked
only about potential harm.
34
9.5.4 FIH in their submission have stated that its Bye laws are not aimed to
deny entry to leagues such as WSH and pointed out that DG
completely misunderstood the regulations adopted by FIH. The
Regulations do not impose a ban on any organizer who is not a
member of FIH or HI from organizing any event. The Regulations only
require that the organizer should approach FIH, CF or NA to seek
sanction for holding the event. The right of the sports governing body
cannot be held to be anti-competitive per se. Instead, an act of refusal
actuated by reasons that are anti-competitive in nature, without
countervailing considerations may be determined to be anti-
competitive. It also pointed out that the amendments to the Bye laws
was prospective in nature and did not restrict the ability of Nimbus to
hold the WSH event.HI and FIH submitted their disagreements with
the DG‟s findings. They maintained that the rules relating to
sanctioned and unsanctioned events and the conditions contained in the
CoC Agreement are „ inherent and proportionate‟ to the attainment of
their objectives as sports governing bodies.
Analysis of the Commission
10.1 The scope afforded for restricting competition in sports is a strong

possibility when the „power to sanction‟ an event and the
„organisation‟of the event is vested with a single entity namely the
designated National Association. The case pertains to the alleged
imposition of restrictive conditions by Hockey India, the National
Association for the sport of Hockey, on players in un-sanctioned
prospective private professional leagues resulting in denial of entry
(permission) to competing leagues. Duality of roles assigned or
appropriated by the designated National Association also raises
concerns about the possible violation of the Competition Act‟2002.
10.2 The character of sports has evolved over a period of time and the
organizationof sports events generates significant revenues. The
commercial dimension of sports is enormous andaccording to a recent
35
A.T. Kearney study of sports teams, leagues and Federations, today's
global sports industry is worth between €350 billion and €450 billion
($480-$620 billion).This includes infrastructure construction, sporting
goods, licensed products and live sports events.
10.3 Sports Federations across the world have opted for a non-profit
institutional form, to highlight that revenue forms a secondary
consideration and generation of important values such as team spirit,
solidarity, tolerance and fair play are primary objectives of the sport.
But with surge in revenues, there is every likelihood that preferences
and priorities in practice may be different from the original or stated
objectives. And it is this possibility of anti-competitive conduct, which
has seen substantial increase in case filings with competition agencies
across the world against the conduct of sports bodies. The Commission
has taken note of increasing cases against sports federations in India
also and, therefore, considers it appropriate to first analyze the sports
sector as a whole, through the prism of competition regulation.
10.4 Determination of Issues

10.4.1 In order to evaluate the possibility of distortions that can occur in the
sports sector, it is necessary to understand the structure of sports which
has certain specificities. An understanding of the sports structure, and
its specificities, will provide an appropriate framework to examine the
allegations of the informant, the responses of the opposite parties and
the DGs report, before arriving at conclusions, as regards, the alleged
violations of the Act.
10.4.2 The Commission considered the following issues of relevance to the

understanding of sports sector and application of competition laws.
Pyramid Structure
10.5. At the outset, it is important to understand the pyramidal structure of

sports which forms the basis of regulation and governance.
36
What is Pyramid structure of sports governance?
10.5.1 Pyramid structure means a single national sport association per sport
and Member State, which operates under the umbrella of a single
continental/ national Federation and a single worldwide Federation,
which is at the top of the pyramid. For Olympic sports, the worldwide
Federation is affiliated to International Olympic Committee (IOC),
which forms the top of pyramid. In the context of this case, the
hierarchy is IOC at top, followed by FIH, followed by Continental
Federations such as Asian Hockey Federation (AHF), followed by
National Association that is Hockey India.
What are the merits of pyramid structure?
10.5.2 The Commission examined a number of articles/papers on the aspect

of significance of the pyramid structure for successful development of
the sport, such as White Paper on Sport issued by EC and international
jurisprudence. The Commission took note of most important merits of
the pyramid structure which are:
i) Pyramid structure helps to ensure that the special requirements
of sports, such as uniform rules and a uniform timetable for
competitions, are taken into account(Source: Opinion of
Advocate-General in MOTOE case).
ii) Pyramid structure is essential for organization of national
championships and the selection of national athletes and
national teams for international competitions.
iii) Enforcement of rules that ensure proper organization and
prioritisation of international competition as the international
competition is recognized to be an essential and valuable
feature of sport. (Source: Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974]
ECR 1405).
iv) Enforcement of rules that protect integrity of the sport and
maintain public confidence.
37
What are the potential competition concerns that arise because of
pyramid structure?
10.5.3 The structure implies that the organizations responsible for regulating
the sport and committed to orderly development of the sport are also
the organisers of sports or the commercial beneficiaries of sport. As the
revenues have soared of late, a new dimension of pyramid structure has
surfaced. There are now clear concerns that the pyramid structure can
be used to engage into conducts such as infringing the free movements
of players by the Federations/Clubs, discrimination and foreclosure of
entry of the rival leagues, which may fall foul of the competition laws.
Thus, we have a model which has been purportedly established for
enhancing efficiency, but also has the potential to cause anti-
competitive practices.
Specificities of Sport and application of Competition Laws
What are the specificities of sport which make it distinct from other
commercial enterprises?
10.6.1 Sport has certain specific characteristics, which are often referred to as
the „specificity of sport‟. These specificities can be on the aspect of
sporting activities and of sporting rules such as separate competitions
for men and women, limitations on the number of participants in
competitions, or the need to ensure uncertainty concerning outcomes
and to preserve a competitive balance between clubs taking part in the
same competitions. The specificities can also be with respect to a
structure notable among them are: the autonomy and diversity of sport
organisations, a pyramid structure of competitions from grassroots to
elite level; organised solidarity mechanisms between the different
levels and operators; the organisation of sport on a national basis; and
the principle of a single Federation per sport.
38
How should restrictive conditions/practices emanating from pyramid
structure be evaluated for compliance with competition laws?
10.6.2 The Commission feels it is important to consider the manner in which

competition laws are applied to the sports federations, given the fact
that sports involve specificities emanating from pyramid structure of
governance, which make them different from other commercial
activities. As noted, there are strong efficiency arguments in favour of
a pyramid structure as also there are tendencies and scope for potential
anti-competitive practices. The contending tension of pyramid
structure and competition and role that needs to be played by
competition authorities is well enunciated in the White Paper on Sports
issued by EC in Brussels dated 11.07.2007, which states:
“The Commission acknowledges the autonomy of sporting

organisations and representative structures (such as leagues).
Furthermore, it recognises that governance is mainly the
responsibility of sports governing bodies and, to some extent,
the Member States and social partners. Nonetheless, dialogue
with sports organisations has brought a number of areas to the
Commission‟s attention, which are addressed below. The
Commission considers that most challenges can be addressed
through self-regulation respectful of good governance
principles, provided that EU law is respected, and is ready to
play a facilitating role or take action if necessary.”
10.6.3 In context of this case, while the Commission appreciates the

relevance and requirement of pyramid structure with the consequence
of one National Association per sport, per Member State, it is the duty
of the Commission that their functioning and activities must not violate
theobjectives of the Act. The Commission affirms the right of self-
regulation of sports bodies with regard to issues, which are purely
sporting, such as selection of teams, formulation of rules of the sport
39
etc. or, even the issues which have economic aspects such as grant of
various rights related to sports events or organization of leagues etc.
However, given the inherent overlap of regulation and economic gains,
outright grant of immunity to the rules and method of application of
the rules by the federations is not possible.
10.6.4 It is important to consider and evaluate the efficiency arguments

behind the allegedly restrictive anti-competitive regulations/practices
of sports federations before arriving at a decision. The Commission is
of the view that the appropriate approach would be to examine the
regulations and the manner of application of regulations, for anti-
competitive effects on economic competition on the lines of inherence
proportionality principle laid down in the Meca Medina judgment of
Grand Chamber of ECJ.
10.6.5 The inherence-proportionality test which is currently considered as the

appropriate approach to address the competition issues in sports sector
provides that if the alleged restrictive conditions is inherent to the
objectives of the sports federationand the effect of restrictive condition
on economic competition among stakeholders or on free movement of
players is proportionate to legitimate sporting interest perused, the
same may not be viewed as anti-competitive. This test may be applied
to all rules, without needing to classify them as purely sporting or
otherwise. In the early stages of application of competition law to
sports, there was a notion that “purely sporting rules” must be
exempted from Competition laws, but now all rules whether on the
organizational/structural/regulatory role may be judged on case to case
basis considering their inherence and proportionality.
10.7 In the backdrop of the above discussions on specificities of sports

sector, the Commission considered it appropriate to delve on the
competition issues related to the present case. The issues considered
for determination are:
i) Whether the Commission has jurisdiction over the HI and FIH?
40
ii) Whether there has been any abuse of dominance by HI/FIH?
iii) Whether there has been any contravention of Section 3 of the
Act?
Jurisdiction
10.8 After considering the structural aspects of sports organization and

governance and the manner of application of competition laws to
sports cases, the Commission examined the issue of jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction of Competition Authorities has been challenged in some
cases in other jurisdiction by sports federations; and in the given case,
HI and FIH have also disputed the jurisdiction of the Commission. The
issues related to jurisdiction are examined below.
What is the scope of jurisdiction of the Act over sports federations?
10.8.1 The Commission considered it appropriate to examine the issue of

jurisdiction in detail and considered the international jurisprudence and
literature on sports sector to draw relevant broad principles, and also
the provisions of the Competition Act. Thegeneral arguments of the
opposite parties have centred on their non-profit institutional form and
their so callednon-economic activities.The pleas of sports federations
not being subject to Competition laws, given their non-profit form was
observed in a case against ELPA(Source-
MotosykletistikiOmospondiaEllados NPID (MOTOE) v
EllinikoDimosio,Case No C-49/07, THE COURT (Grand Chamber))
(the authority participating in authorisation by a public body of motor
cycling events and also responsible for organising motor sports
competitions in Greece). It was held that:
“..The fact that MOTOE, the applicant in the main

proceedings, is itself a non-profit-making association
has, from that point of view, no effect on the
41
classification as an undertaking of a legal person such
as ELPA. First, it is not inconceivable that, in Greece,
there exist, in addition to the associations whose
activities consist in organising and commercially
exploiting motorcycling events without seeking to make a
profit, associations which are engaged in that activity
and do seek to make a profit and which are thus in
competition with ELPA. Second, non-profit-making
associations which offer goods or services on a given
market may find themselves in competition with one
another. The success or economic survival of such
associations depends ultimately on their being able to
impose, on the relevant market, their services to the
detriment of those offered by the other operators...”
10.8.2 The plea of non-profit status to be considered for granting immunity

from Competition laws was also considered in Minnesota Made
hockey Inc. case(Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. V Minnesota Hockey,
Inc., Civil No.10-3884(JRT/JJK), United States District Court, District
of Minnesota). The US District Court ruled in a similar case:
“Since the defendants here offer services in exchange for

money, their actions are commercial and trigger potential
liability(“The exchange of money for services, even by a non-
profit organization, is a quintessential commercial transaction.
Therefore the Court finds unavailing defendants” argument for
immunity from antitrust law based on their non-profit
status.”).”
Similarly, the dimension of activities being non-economic and hence

immunity from Competition laws was also addressed in ELPA
judgment of ECJ. The Grand Chamber of ECJ on the case against
42
ELPA had also observed on the question of whether sports constitute
economic activity:
“……It should be borne in mind in this regard that any activity

consisting in offering goods or services on a given market is an
economic activity (see, in particular, Case
C-35/96Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851, paragraph 36,
and Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov and
Others [2000] ECR I-6451, paragraph 75). Provided that that
condition is satisfied, the fact that an activity has a connection
with sport does not hinder the application of the rules of the
Treaty (Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405,
paragraph 4, and Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921,
paragraph 73) including those governing competition law (see,
to that effect, Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and
Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, paragraphs 22 and
28)…”[Source C-49/07, REFERENCE ibid.)
10.8.3The White Paper released by EC on Sports note that post Meca Medina
judgement, National sports associations and International Sports
Associations may be both undertakings under Articles 81 and 82 EC
and associations of undertakings under Article 81 EC. Sports
associations are undertakings where they themselves carry out
economic activity, e.g., by commercially exploiting a sport event.
Sports associations are associations of undertakings under Article 81
EC to the extent they constitute groupings of sport clubs/teams or
athletes for which the practice of sport constitutes an economic
activity.
10.8.4The Commission also considered this issue in deciding on the BCCI

case, (In Re BCCI Case No.61/2010). The Commission noted that the
Act focuses on the functional aspects of an entity rather than
institutional aspects. The scope of the definition on the institutional
front has been kept broad enough to include virtually all the entities as
it includes „person‟ as well as departments of the government. The
specific exception has been provided only to the activities related to
the sovereign functions of the government. It is in substance the nature
of activity that would decide whether the entity is an enterprise for the
43
purpose of the Act or not. The aspect of „organization‟ brings in
activities contributing to the revenues of sports federations such as
grant of media rights, sale of tickets etc. The activities of „organizing
events‟ are definitely economic activities as there is a revenue
dimension to the organizational activities of sports federations.
10.8.5On the basis of principles emerging from international jurisprudence,

the provisions of the Act and a holistic consideration of all relevant
factors, the Commission opines that the National Sports Federations do
not have any immunity under the Act and the Competition laws are
applicable to these bodies. Therefore, the Commission concludes that it
has jurisdiction over HI.
10.8.6On the aspect of jurisdiction of the Commission over FIH being an

international federation founded under Swiss law, the Commission
concurs with findings of DG that given the scope of definition of
person contained under Section 2(l) and the extra territorial jurisdiction
of the Commission under Section 32 of the Act, it has jurisdiction over
FIH.
Abuse of Dominance
10.9The pivotal inquiry in a case of alleged abuse of dominance is
assessment of dominance in the defined relevant market, followed by
inquiry into the conduct. The Commission considered the issue of
delineation of relevant market and assessment of dominance of HI.
Definition of Relevant Market
10.9.1 The Commission is not in agreement with the definition of relevant

market as proposed by the informants and as found by DG. The
informants and DG had defined the relevant product market in terms of
conducting and governing activities. While the informants argued for
limiting the definition to international hockey activities only, the DG
took both the international and domestic hockey events. HI, in their
44
response to DG‟s report submitted to the Commission that the
definition of relevant market does not arise as its services are not
covered under the Act (see para 8.3.1).
Firstly, the Commission is of the view that governing activities cannot
be a part of market definition, but governing powers can be a source of
dominance. Secondly, on the aspect of limiting the market to
international and/ or domestic events, the Commission considered the
related definitions and Bye laws of FIH. As per FIH Bye laws, a
domestic event is defined as, “any event that does not involve National
Representative Teams.”
10.9.2An International Event is defined as, “an event in which National
Representative Teams compete. It includes (without limitation) events
staged as part of a multi-sport event such as the Olympic Games.”
FIH Bye laws in relation to sanctioning of events, provide
“Where a proposed Domestic Event would be open only to

teams in membership of or affiliated to one National
Association, and would be staged entirely within that National
Association‟s territory, then in order for that event to be
recognised as a Sanctioned Event it must be organised or
sanctioned by that National Association.
Where a proposed Domestic Event would be open to more than

one National Association‟s teams and/or Athletes, and/or would
be staged by one National Association in another National
Association‟s territory or in more than one National
Association‟s territory, then in order for that event to be
recognised as a Sanctioned Event:
a. if the event is open only to teams and/or Athletes in
membership of or affiliated to National Associations
within one Continental Federation, and the event would
be staged entirely within that continent, then it must be
sanctioned by that Continental Federation; while
b. if the event is open to teams and/or Athletes in
membership of or affiliated to National Associations
from different Continental Federations, and/or it would
be staged (in whole or in part) outside of the teams‟
continent, it must be sanctioned by the relevant
Continental Federations and by the FIH.”
10.9.3 On perusal of these Bye laws, the Commission noticed that even if a
particular event is defined as “domestic”, it may still require,
45
sanctioning from FIH or CFs based on nationality of participating
athletes. Thus, the Commission concluded that the market need not be
limited to a particular type of event as defined.
10.9.4The Commission also considered and findsno merit in the submission
of HI that there is no relevant market, as its activities are not covered
in the definition of activity or service as contained in the Act. The
Commission has already stated that its activities are commercial and
stand covered by Competition Act.
10.9.5Under Section 2(t) of the Competition Act, 2002, the relevant product
market is defined as,
“a market comprising all those products or services which are

regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer,
by reason of characteristics of the products or services, their
prices and intended use.”
10.9.6The definition considers substitutability by the consumer. Thus, the

appropriate framework for defining the relevant market would be to
identify the consumer and consider the substitutability from the point
of view of the consumer on the parameters of characteristics, price and
intended use.
Consumers in Sports sector
10.9.7 Who is the consumer in sports sector? According to the informants,

the Hockey players are the consumers, while according to HI, the
players cannot be regarded as consumers. The DG also defines hockey
players as consumers. The Commission is of the opinion that the sports
sector comprises multitude of relationships. For example, a sports
Federation may be a seller of various rights such as media rights,
sponsorship rights, and franchise rights associated with each event and
correspondingly there would be a separate set of consumers for such
rights. Similarly, the ultimate viewers of sports event are consumers of
the final product that is a sports event. Also, a sports Federation
requires services of players, officials etc. for staging an event which
46
makes sports Federations themselves as consumers. In this multitude of
relationships, defining the relevant consumer apriori would enable
defining the relevant market.
10.9.8In the instant case, there are two issues at broader level, the first relates
to alleged practices of FIH/HI to foreclose the market for rival leagues
by bringing in regulations related to sanctioned and unsanctioned
events; the second relates to restrictive conditions imposed by HI on
players through the CoCagreement. The allegations of foreclosure of
rival leagues, grant of media rights and imposing restrictive conditions
on movement of players form the crux of almost all the major antitrust
inquiries in the sports sector. In order to properly evaluate the
competition concerns, the Commission considered the relevant markets
for the two allegations separately. The Commission opines that the
concerns of abuse of dominance by an entity vis a vis its rivals can best
be examined in the market for final product which is the event and
whose consumer is the ultimate viewer of the sport. The second issue
of restrictive conditions on the Hockey players however needs to be
examined in context of the market for services of Hockey players
where Hockey India is the consumer and Hockey players, the service
providers.
Relevant Market for analysis of foreclosure of market for hockey

events to rival leagues
10.9.10 The Commission considers delineation of relevant market for

analysis of allegations pertaining to foreclosure of market for hockey
events to rival leagues from the viewpoint of the spectator i.e. the
ultimate viewer of sport in accordance with the criteria laid down
under the Act of „ characteristics, intended use and price‟.
10.9.11At the outset, the Commission takes note of characteristics of hockey
events. Every sport has unique characteristics that lead to development
of fan following, the end consumers of the event. A hockey match,
47
like a cricket match cannot be perceived as substitutable by any other
sport based on characteristics. Also, the Commission notes differences
in various types of hockey events. There are hockey events, which
include representative teams of member nations of FIH, defined as
international events. Similarly, there are events which are played
between the teams representing the members of National Associations
such as HI. Clearly distinct from these two types of events are the
latest genre of sports events which take the form of„private
professional leagues‟, where the teams represent franchises and not any
member of National Association or member of International
Federation.
10.9.12The approach of defining relevant market narrowed to sports events
within a particular sport finds support from international cases decided
on similar issues. In the Dutch Football case(Source- KNVB v
Feyenoord, High Court of Amsterdam verdict of 08.11.1996), the
Dutch F.A (KNVB) were taken to court by on affiliated club
(Feyenoord). The KNVB decided in 1996 to sell the rights to
transmission of all national league games, and all games of the Dutch
national team, to a sports channel for seven years. The plaintiff
maintained that under Dutch Law this amounted to an illegal price
fixing agreement. This view was upheld by the court. The court held
that the relevant product market was „the market for (Dutch) football
broadcasting rights.‟
10.9.13On the aspect of the intended use, it may be argued that the basic
objective of end consumer is entertainment and which would mean and
imply that a consumer would consider different entertainment forms as
substitutes and therefore a case for broadening the market. The
Commission also considered the substitutability of cricket with other
entertainment forms in the BCCI case, but is of the opinion that the
issue is of more relevance in examination of cases where allegations
have an impact on media and broadcasting industry. For a live viewer
48
of the sport, the entertainment from sport may not be regarded as
substitutable with other general entertainment forms.
10.9.14As regards the price factor or defining the relevant market,
Considering the basic test of non-transitory relative price rise of 5% to
10% also known as SNNIP test and in considering consumer behaviour
towards sport, it is unlikely and difficult to believe that a consumer
would substitute hockey event with any other form of entertainment
viz. Films, TV shows etc. or any other sporting event.
10.9.15The Commission, after taking note of aforesaid factors concludes that

the relevant product market, as regards the allegation of foreclosure of
rival leagues is, “the market for organization of private professional
hockey leagues in India”. This definition is neutral of the definitions of
domestic event and international events contained in Bye laws of FIH
and HI.
10.9.16On the issue of relevant geographic market, DG concluded that the

market is pan India while HI argued for a broader market on the
ground that WSH was supposed to be televised to a global audience.
10.9.17The Commission considered that though the markets are becoming

more and more international and cross border due to the events being
televised on a global basis, yet there are factors such as regulatory
regimes, consumer preferences, which differ from country to country.
Moreover, the Commission is mandated to look into the anti-
competitive practices impacting Indian consumers, therefore there are
enough reasons to maintain the geographic market as pan India.
Relevant market for analysis of allegations related to restrictions on

players‟ movements
10.9.18Hockey India which is the organizer of hockey events requires the

services of hockey players for conducting events. There is a degree of
49
complementarity between the two. DG and informants have argued
that the players are the consumers of service of HI. The Commission
holds a different view.
The definition of consumer as contained in the Act reads:

“consumer means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system ofdeferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other thanthe person who buys such goods for
consideration paid orpromised or partly paid or partly
promised, or under any system ofdeferred payment when such
use is made with the approval of suchperson, whether such
purchase of goods is for resale or for anycommercial purpose
or for personal use;
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has
beenpaid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or
under anysystem of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of suchservices other than the person who hires or
avails of the servicesfor consideration paid or promised, or
partly paid and partlypromised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when suchservices are availed of with the
approval of the first-mentionedperson whether such hiring or
availing of services is for anycommercial purpose or for
personal use.”
10.9.19The Commission notes that in this case, HI is hiring the services of

Hockey players where themonetary consideration is in the form of
match fees etc. which implies that HI is the consumer in this market.
The arguments cited by DG and informants based on treatment of
hockey players as consumers on the aspects of demand and supply side
substitutability with HI being the consumer are valid in so far as
delineating the relevant market “market for services of hockey players”
50
10.9.20 The definition of the informant and the DG pertain to Relevant
Market which is significant for analysis of abuse of dominance vis a
vis rival leagues only and as such fails to bring out the criticality of
arguments which hinge on labour restrictions. More importantly, the
governance aspect emphasized by DG and informant as a source of
dominance cannot be part of definition of the market in understanding
the scope of abuse of dominance vis a vis players and officials
involved in sports of Hockey”. Commission considers it appropriate
to define a relevant market in the context of the specific allegation
more so where there are multitude of consumers as in the case of sports
as pointed out earlier.
Assessment of Dominance in the market for organization of private

professional hockey activities in India.
10.10.1At the time of submission of the case, HI was not a part of the
relevant market. WSH was the first league to fall in the definition of
„private professional league‟. The talks of introducing a league of their
own by Hockey India had started at that time. HI, as anticipated made
the entry by way of Hockey India League, which was organized in
2013.
10.10.2Undoubtedly in the defined market, the most significant source of
dominance is the regulatory powers of HI. HI is a national association
for hockey in India within the pyramid and in this capacity is vested
with certain rights by FIH, prime among them is the right of HI to
sanction/approve hockey events in India. This right to approve leagues
has significant impact on any private professional league which might
be proposed to be organized. The HI‟s regulatory role empowers it,
along with FIH to create entry barriers for other leagues in the form of
requiring rival leagues to obtain sanctions for their tournament and
requiring players to obtain NOCs from HI to participate in rival
tournaments. The aspects of granting sanctions for a league and giving
NOCs for participation are regulatory in nature, but are in a clear
51
position to impact the market for organising events and are a vital
source of dominance.
10.10.3Dominance also stems from the role of HI as an organizer of

International hockey events. With this role, HI controls a pool of
players that sign the CoC agreement for playing in such events. Players
are a vital input to the organization of any sport and ability to control
top players lead to dominance of HI.
10.10.4The Commission also considered the cases settled in other
jurisdictions inthis aspect. In the ELPA Case, the Court on the issue of
dominance of sports association insisted that,
“…a system of undistorted competition, such as that provided

for by the treaty, can be guaranteed only if equality of
opportunity is secured between the various economic operators.
To entrust a legal person such as ELPA, the National
Association for Motorcycling in Greece, which itself organizes
and commercially exploits motorcycling events, the task of
giving the competent administration its consent to applications
for authorization to organize such events, is tantamount de facto
to conferring upon it the power to designate the persons
authorized to organize those events and to set the conditions in
which those events are organized, thereby placing that entity at
an obvious advantage over its competitors. Such a right may
therefore lead the undertaking which possesses it to deny other
operators access to the relevant market…”
[Source C-49/07, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under

Article 234 EC, from the Diikitiko EfetioAthinon (Greece), made
by decision of 21 November 2006, received at the Court on 5
February 2007, in the proceedings,
MotosykletistikiOmospondiaEllados NPID (MOTOE) v
EllinikoDimosio, THE COURT (Grand Chamber)]
52
10.10.5The Commission having due regard to the factors mentioned above
and the decision in case of BCCI and of Grand Chamber of ECJ in
ELPA case concludes that HI is in a dominant position in the market
for organizing private professional hockey leagues in India.
Assessment of Dominance in Market for services of hockey players.
10.10.6As emphasised having due regard to the complementarity of the

consumer and the provider of services for delivering a final product,
the Commission considered it appropriate to define the relevant
market as that of services of hockey players. In such a market,
assessment of dominance can be made in terms of weight of the
parties and the countervailing power asserted on each other.
Interestingly, the fact that both require each other for fulfilment of
economic objectives makes them indispensable to each other. Thus,
what remains to be seen is whether any one of the two has powers to
impose conditions on the other.
10.10.7The most important aspect relevant to assessment of dominance in

this market is the fact that HI is a monopsony buyer. The DG has
drawn attention to the CoC agreement as an instrument for foreclosure
by way of restrictions on the players. The Commission, after perusal of
conditions contained in the CoC agreement, opines that these
regulations stand testimony to the monopsony power and dominance of
HI vis a vis hockey players. With the instruments such as CoC
agreement, HI is in a position to restrict the freedom of movement of
players which makes it dominant. However, whether the imposed
conditions constitute abuse of dominance needs to be seen.
10.10.8The Commission notes that there are no hockey players associations

which further imply the reduced bargaining power of hockey players as
well as the fact that the monopsony situation implies ability of HI to
choose from many players and not vice versa which implies HI in a
position to act independently of the hockey players.
53
10.10.9Based on these factors and the decision in WPBSA case referred by
DG, the Commission concludes that HI is dominant in the market for
services of Hockey players.
Analysis of Abuse of Dominance
10.11Having established dominance of HI in the two delineated relevant

markets, we now proceed to examine whether there has been any abuse
of dominance. The specific allegations to recollect, levelled by
informants were:
(i) HI is misusing its regulatory powers and promoting its own
Hockey League to the exclusion of WSH and is engaging in
practices resulting in denial of market access to rivals, in
contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
(ii) HI is using its dominance in conducting international events in
India to enter into the market of conducting a domestic event in
India, in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
(iii) The CoC Agreement entered by HI with Players is an exclusive
supply agreement and the restrictive conditions included
thereunder, constitute a violation of Section 3(4) of the Act.
10.11.1The DG in his report noted that the conditions relating to sanctioned
and unsanctioned events were introduced by FIH and implemented in
India by HI as an afterthought to the announcement of WSH. DG also
pointed out to the actions of HI and FIH issuing warning letters to
players from participation in WSH and non-selection of players who
played in WSH in the Indian Hockey Team which went to London and
Malaysia. According to DG, the restrictions imposed by HI resulted in
foreclosure of market for any other enterprise to organize hockey
tournaments in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(c)
of the Act.
10.11.2DG further noted the changes made in conditions of CoC Agreement
relating to disciplinary action against players participating in
54
unsanctioned events, and, requirement of NOC by players from HI
before playing forany foreign team/club etc other than Hockey India or
their registered Member Unit. According to DG, the pre-condition of
not allowing the top hockey players to play unsanctioned event on a
threat of not taking them into the national hockey team selected to play
international Olympic match is unfair and without any justification,and
places restrictive conditions on hockey players in India.Note was also
taken of MoYAS statement asper which, none of those players, who
participated in the WSH series were included in the 48 core probable
for the camp held at Bangalore for preparation and selection of Indian
team after the WSH series. On the above facts, DG found the conduct
of HI to be in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the
Act. However, DG did not consider the aspect of Section 4(2)(e)
violation.
10.11.3On the allegation of informants that the CoC Agreement is an
exclusive supply agreement in contravention of Section 3(4), DG noted
that there is lack of commercial relationship between HI and players
and concluded that the allegation cannot be substantiated.
10.11.4Another allegation which was pointed out by DG was contravention

of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. DG stated that the recommendations
made by an association are deemed to be an arrangement between the
members of the association and are covered under the definition of
agreement as contained in the Act. DG found the acts of HI and FIH
related to introduction of bye laws on sanctioned and unsanctioned
events in violation of the provisions of section 3(3)(b) of the Act
restricts any other person except the members of FIH and HI to
organize any Hockey event in India.
10.11.5The Commission, after perusal of allegations levelled by the
informants and findings of DG, notes that all allegations are stemming
from the following two primary issues:
(a) Regulations brought by FIH and implemented by HI relating
to sanctioned and unsanctioned events; and
55
(b) Conditions contained in CoC Agreement signed between HI
and players.
These issues are dealt in hereunder.
Regulations relating to sanctioned and unsanctioned events
The Commission considered the following approach for determination

of abuse of dominance relating to FIH Bye laws regarding sanctioned
and unsanctioned events.
Intent and manner of application of regulations
10.12.1The Commission examined in depth the findings of DG that the

manner of application and the timing of these regulations as indicative
of abuse of dominance, and is of the opinion that intent/rationale
behind introduction of the guidelines as submitted by FIH relating to
sanctioned and unsanctioned events needs to be appreciated before
arriving at any conclusions. Factors such as ensuring primacy of
national representative competition, deter free riding on the
investments by national associations, maintaining the calendar of
activities in a cohesive manner not cutting across the interests of
participating members, preserving the integrity of the sport, etc. are
inherent to the orderly development of the sport, which is the prime
objective of the sports associations. Moving further, on the
proportionality aspect, the Commission opines that proportionality of
the regulations can only be decided by considering the manner in
which regulations are applied.
10.12.2It is the manner of applying regulations that raise competition

concerns as it may be used as a tool for foreclosing new entrants. The
present allegations centre on foreclosure of market to rival leagues by
sports associations in the garb of rules and Bye laws relating to
sanctioned and unsanctioned events. In the present case, the
Commission notes the following:
56
10.12.3Firstly, no approval was sought by WSH. The rules contained in FIH
Bye laws stated that,
“Where a proposed domestic event would be open only to teams

in membership of or affiliated to one National Association, and
would be staged entirely within that National Association‟s
territory, then in order for that event to be recognised as a
Sanctioned Event it must be organised or sanctioned by that
National Association. Where a proposed Domestic Event would
be open to more than one National Association‟s teams and/or
Athletes, and/or would be staged by one National Association in
another National Association‟s territory or in more than one
National Association‟s territory, then in order for that event to
be recognised as a Sanctioned Event: a. if the event is open only
to teams and/or Athletes in membership of or affiliated to
National Associations within one Continental Federation, and
the event would be staged entirely within that continent, then it
must be sanctioned by that Continental Federation; while
if the event is open to teams and/or Athletes in membership of or

affiliated to National Associations from different Continental
Federations, and/or it would be staged (in whole or in part)
outside of the teams‟ continent, it must be sanctioned by the
relevant Continental Federations and by the FIH.”
10.12.4The WSH was a domestic event as per definition contained in FIH

Bye laws, but it was very clear that the sanction was to be given by the
respective Continental Federations and by FIH. Since, HI was not the
sanctioning authority for such an event and hence cannot be faulted for
refusing the sanction which was neither to be granted by HI nor asked
to be granted from HI.
10.12.5The DG pointed out that informants were in talks with FIH for the
approval, but it is equally important to note that a formal application
57
for sanction was not made to any sports authority outlined in Bye laws
of FIH.
10.12.6Secondly, the rules apply prospectively. The FIH guidelines were

issued on 11th March 2011 and came into effect on 31st March 2011.
The prospective application of Bye laws negates the „afterthought to
WSH‟ finding by DG. DG considered a letter from FIH dated 04th May
2012 in which according to DG, the FIH had recommended that any
person who had participated in the WSH be deemed to have forfeited
his eligibility to participate in international events for a minimum of 12
months. The Commission notes that DG did not consider the full
contents of the paragraph, which clearly provided that this statement
was in context of those players/officials who had committed to play for
WSH after the regulations related to unsanctioned events came in
force. This implies that FIH was not advocating disciplinary action on
those players/officials who entered into binding agreements with WSH
before the regulations of FIH were notified.
10.12.7Thirdly, based on the reply from Ministry of Youth and Sports Affair
(MoYaS) on the selection of probables for the Indian team, DG had
concluded that none of those players, who participated in the WSH
series were included in the 48 core probable and subsequent tours to
London and Malaysia. The Commission considered HI‟s submissions
that, the reason behind the players not being selected was their non-
participation in training camp, which otherwise was mandatory, and
not owing to participation of players in WSH. HI had also clarified that
the dates for training camp were as per schedule approved by Ministry
almost a year in advance and HI also stated that the list of probables
were issued before commencement of WSH. Thus, the Commission
noted that the evidences areinsufficient to conclude that HI has indeed
acted against the players who participated in WSH.
10.12.8 The Commission thus concludes that the allegation against HI/FIH
for causing denial of market access under Section 4(2)(c), to WSH is
58
not substantiated, considering the provisions of Bye laws as well as the
manner of application of Bye laws.
10.12.9On the allegation of violation of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act made by

the informant, the Commission notes that the allegation by informants
was based on their definition of relevant market being the market for
domestic hockey events and further considering WSH to be a domestic
event that requires sanctioning from national association of hockey in
India. The Commission‟s definition differentiates between the
representative events and private professional leagues and is neutral to
the definitions of domestic/international events as contained in FIH
bye laws. Thuson the basis of the above facts and keeping in mind
„inherent and proportionality‟ approach to regulations, the Commission
finds no validity in the allegations relating to contravention of Section
4(2)(e).
Conditions contained in CoC Agreement
10.13.1The issue of restrictions on free movement of players through the

CoC Agreement has been alleged to be in contravention of Section
3(4) and also Section 4(2)(c) i.e. denial of market access to players
desirous of playing in events such as WSH. However, the DG
concluded that the relationship between HI and players cannot be
interpreted as a commercial relationship amongst enterprises at
different stages or levels of the production chain in different markets.
CHence, the CoC agreement cannot be considered as a vertical
agreement as understood under section 3(4) of the Act.
10.13.2The Commission does not agree with the DG‟s conclusions, that the
CoC is not a vertical agreement. The key aspect of a vertical
relationship is that the agents in such a relation should be at different
stages of the production chain. Competition concerns in a vertical
59
relationship arise if one of the agent on account of its‟ market power is
able to impose unreasonable restraints on the other, that are likely to
cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition. In context of this
case, HI is the buyer of services of hockey players for the
production/organization of any hockey event. This relationship
between HI and the players is, hence, tantamount to a vertical
relationship where HI and the players are at different stages of the
production chain. The standards applied to test the effect of vertical
restraints on competition have already been spelt out in the the
Commission‟s Order in case no. 24 of 2011, Sonam Sharma vs. Apple
Inc. and Ors. 10.13.3 There the Commission held that for concluding
that a vertical agreement has caused an appreciable adverse effect on
competition, the person imposing the vertical restriction should be in a
dominant position and the intent behind the restriction should be
foreclosure,without any obvious efficiency justifications.
10.13.4Given, that the allegations in respect of violation of section 3(4) and

4(2)(c) are arising from the same instrument i.e. CoC agreement, the
Commission considers it appropriate to examine the CoC Agreement
in detail for contravention of Section 3(4) and 4(2)(c) of the Act.
10.13.5At the outset it needs to be reiterated that the conditions contained in

CoC agreement need to be analysed for their restrictive effects in
conjunction with specificities of sports. The conditions relating to
restrictions on participation (non-participation the phrase used) in
unsanctioned events and players being subjected to requirement of
obtaining NOC for participating in events involving foreign
teams/clubs has to be in the opinion of the Commission examined in
the given perspective. The Commission noted -
a. The CoC mandates non - participation in unsanctioned events

and does not require non participation in any event. The system
of sanctioning of events is put in place with clear description on
types of events and the sanctioning authorities. Sanctioning an
60
event is a regulatory function of sports bodies and cannot be
found foul of, per se, for violation of competition laws. It is
necessary to prove that the application of system was not in
accordance with sporting objectives. In BCCI‟s case, ICC
clearly asked members to address revenue concerns ahead of
sanctioning others events which was an indicator of intent of
ICC behind introduction of such a system. BCCI‟s intent was
clear from the Clause inserted in Media Agreement. Thus,
unless and until there is an instance where HI applies this
clause in an unfair/discriminatory manner, there is no
contravention of the Act.
b. Requirement of NoC does not amount to a blanket restriction to
play in other events involving foreign teams/clubs.
Requirement of NOC arises from the efficiency dimensions that
it introduces to the game and therefore some restrictive effects
can be considered as proportionate. CoC Agreement not only
includes the conditions related to participation in other events,
but also includes standards of behaviour and conduct such as:
players are expected not to indulge in verbal/physical abuse
towards other players/officials/members of public; disputing
the official decisions; charging towards officials in an
aggressive manner; failure of following dress protocols,
hostility towards Anti-Doping Control Test Officer; use of
illegal drugs etc. Some of these standards are critical to the
sport and can warranta ban for life. Including a statement to
that effect cannot be fouled unless there is an instance of
disproportionate bans being imposed on players for small
breaches.
10.13.6The Commission is of the opinion that these restrictive conditions are

inherent and proportionate to the objectives of HI and cannot be fouled
on per se basis till there is any instance where theseare applied in a
disproportionate manner, for which there is no evidence at present. The
61
Commission concludes that allegations of violation of Section 3(4) and
4(2)(c) cannot be substantiated.
10.14After evaluation of the primary issues which were the core of the case,
the Commission also considers the findings of DG on the aspect of
adoption of FIH bye laws by HI being in contravention of Section
3(3)(b) of the Act.
Whether there is any contravention of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act?
10.14.1The Commission notes and agrees with the submissions of HI on the

aspect of hierarchy, and not being entitled to vote at the time of
adoption of resolution. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that
adoption of Bye laws does not amount to a horizontal agreement in
contravention of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act.
Order
The Commission after considering all the aspects relating to the case
concluded that there is no contravention of Section 3(3)(b), 3(4),
4(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Act in this instance.
However, the nature of the present system itself, with the possible
conflict of interest between the „regulatory‟ and „organising of events‟
roles of Hockey India, has raised certain potential competition
concerns in the mind of the Commission.The manner in which rules
relating to sanctioned and unsanctioned events and restrictive
conditions included in CoC agreement are applied becomes critical in
this context.
The Commission observes that the lack of parameters that define and
demarcate the scope afforded by the term „organisation of events‟can
lend itself to several interpretations. A regulator must necessarily
62
follow the dictum that „Caesar‟s wife must be above suspicion‟In this
case the DG report points out circumstantial evidence which, though
not establishing violation of the Competition Act, further persuades
the Commission about the inherent potential of violation,and the need
for clear articulation and separation of the two roles of HI. As pointed
out in the Order on BCCI,
“The Commission strongly holds the view that competition is
essentially for benefits to be widespread. The game of cricket and the
monetary benefits of playing professional league matches must be
spread out and not concentrated in a few hands, in a few franchisees.
In a country of large young population more private professional
leagues opens up more venues for youngsters to play cricket, to earn a
livelihood and to find champions where least expected. BCCI in its
dual role of custodian of cricket and organizer of events has on
account of role overlap restricted competition and the benefits of
competition. The objective of BCCI to promote and develop the game
of cricket has been compromised.”
HI‟s economic power is enormous as a regulator. Virtually, there is no

other competitor of HI. The dependence of competitors on HI for
sanctioning of the events, as also dependence of players, has been total,
considering the terms of Bye laws of FIH and CoC Agreement. The
Commission concluded that though these regulations are inherent and
proportionate to the objectives of sports federation, the manner of
application is always a concern given the duality of roles leaving scope
for possible violations of the Competition Act.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission did not find a violation
of Section 3 or 4 of the Act, it took note of the responsibility enjoined
on the Commission by the Preamble and Section 18 of the Act, inter
alia requiring,„to promote and sustain competition and protect the
interests of consumers‟. The Commission, therefore, felt that it would
be appropriate if HI were to put in place an effective internal control
63
system to its own satisfaction, in good faith and after due diligence, to
ensure that its regulatory powers are not used in any way in the process
of considering and deciding on any matters relating to its commercial
activities; and also set up a streamlined fair and transparent system of
issuing NOCs to the players for participating in events organized by
foreign teams/clubs.
In view of the discussion above and the structure of the opposite party
being akin to BCCI, having dual role of regulator as well as organizer;
the possibility of transgression of the lines shall always remain there.
The Commission is alive to this fact and as and when any new facts
come to its notice, the Commission shall consider them in the light of
responsibilities enjoined upon it by the Act and shall act accordingly.
The Secretary is directed to inform the parties accordingly.
Sd/-
(Ashok Chawla)
Chairperson
Sd/-
(H C Gupta)
Member
Sd/-
(Dr.GeetaGouri)
Member
Sd/-
(AnuragGoel)
Member
Sd/-
(Justice (Retd.) S N Dhingra)
Member
64

Dhanraj Pillai PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dhanraj Pillai PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dhanraj Pillai PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competition Commission of India

(Case No.73 of 2011)

Mr. Ashok Chawla

Dr. Geeta Gouri

Mr. Justice (Retd.) S N Dhingra

Present: ______________________ for the informants

2. The case centered on the events leading to the organization of World

3. Parties to the Case and related parties

3.3. A related party to HI is FIH. FIH is the international governing body

3.4 Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) is the National Sports Federation

3.5 Nimbus Sport, a subsidiary of Nimbus Communications Ltd., is a

4.3 HI adopted the regulations relating to unsanctioned events and

The informants made the following submissions in support of

4.6 Jurisdiction issue

4.7 Abuse of dominance

4.7.1.1Demand Side substitutability

4.7.1.3Supply Side substitutability

4.7.1.4On the issue of geographic marketthe informants submitted that

4.8 Assessment of Dominance

4.9 Abuse of Dominance

4.10 Anticompetitive agreements: Violation of Section 3(4)

On the basis of these arguments, the informants alleged contravention

5. Prima Facie Order of the Commission

7.1.2 In arriving at his conclusions regarding HI and FIH being recognized

7.2 Delineation and defining Relevant Market

7.2.2 The DG report recognizes that the conduct and governance of

7.2.6 On the basis of supply and demand side substitutability as examined

7.3.2 To DG, it wasthe pyramidal structure that leads to creation of

“From the point of view of the player, whether one considers

7.4 Analysis of abuse of dominance

7.4.1 After concluding the dominance of HI, the DG examined the

i) foreclosure of market to prospective organizers for the

ii) prohibition of players from participation in domestic hockey

7.4.2 Foreclosure of market to competing organizers of hockey events

7.4.2.3The DG held WSH to be a domestic event which was approved by one

7.4.2.4Based on the statement of Sh. Dhanraj Pillay and the information

7.4.2.5In light of the above mentioned facts, DG concluded, that HI acting

7.5 CoC Agreement and Restraints on Players

7.5.2 In the background of above, HI included certain conditions in its CoC

Contravention of Section 3 of the Act

Whether the Code of conduct signed between HI and Players attracts

The lack of commercial relationship between HI and players nullified

Whether the decision of FIH & HI to impose ban on WSH attracts

7.6.2.7 The decision of FIH and HI regarding sanctioned and unsanctioned

7.6.2.9 In view of the discussion in foregoing paras, the DG established that

8. Submissions of HI and FIH

8.2.2 The issue of „specificities of sport‟ recognized in number of cases by

8.2.5 As regardsthe jurisdiction of the Act over FIH, in addition to the

8.3 Relevant Market Definition

8.4.2 As regards DG‟s findings on regulatory powers being the source of

8.4.3 Moreover, HI cannot be held to be in a position of dominance as it is

8.5 Allegations of Abuse of Dominance

The following submissions were made by FIH:

(i) On the Pyramid Structure

(ii) On the application of competition laws

8.5.3.1FIH also clarified that the rules requiring participants in official

(a) Unsanctioned events are not developed as an integrated part of

(b) Organisers, participants of unsanctioned events are not

(c) Private entrepreneurs are concerned with generating returns on