Mr Shravan Yadav v. Volleyball Federation of India
Mr Shravan Yadav v. Volleyball Federation of India
Mr. Shravan Yadav & others vs. Volleyball Federation of India (VFI) & Other
Facts-
In this case, the informants have alleged that the Volleyball Federation of India and Baseline Ventures ( India) Private Limited have contravened the provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of the act, and thus information under section 19(1)(a) has been filed.
VFI is the exclusive holder of all the rights pertaining to volleyball including commercials associated with it. On 21.02.2018, VFI entered into an agreement with Baseline granting it exclusive rights for organizing a volleyball league for Men, Women and beach volleyball in India for the next 10 years.
The Informants have stated that the clauses of the Agreement are per se anti-competitive and amount to controlling and limiting of the availability of volleyball players for other leagues for the next 10 years.
VFI in its reply confirmed that there are no restrictions on any other person from conducting similar volleyball league (at domestic, state, national or international level). However, such volleyball league conducted by any person other than Baseline, will not be conducted in association with VFI during the term of its Agreement with Baseline.
Issues-
Whether VFI is an enterprise within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the act?
Whether VFI held a dominant position in the relevant market?
Whether the agreement between VFI and Baseline is in contravention of the act?
Applicable Laws/Principles-
CCI in a catena of cases, namely, Hemant Sharma &Others And All India Chess Federation (Case No. 79 of 2011), Dhanraj Pillay and others And Hockey India (Case No. 73 of 2011) and Surinder Singh Barmi And Board for Control of Cricket in India (Case No. 61 of 2010), has held sports federations to be ‘enterprise’ if they are engaged in activities covered under Section 2(h) of the Act.
The Act defines ‘dominant position’ under explanation (a) to Section 4 as, “a position of
strength enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market, in India, which enables it to (a) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or (b) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.”
Section 3 and Section 4 of the Competition Act
Application-
VFI has been established to organize national and international championships which generate revenue for VFI. It also collects affiliation and other fees from its members. It also has a mandate to undertake the economic activity of organizing tournaments Therefore, it is an enterprise in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act.
VFI is the only national level volleyball federation in India. It is also the sole and exclusive authority to govern volleyball laws in India. It conducts volleyball events at both domestic and international level. It is required to take VFI’s permission for conducting any volleyball league. Thus within the meaning of explanation (a) to Section 4, it enjoys a dominant position.
The agreement is anti competitive in nature because VFI has prohibited any other league of same or similar nature as that of Volleyball League to be organised within the territory of India or abroad for a period of ten years as well as even after renewal or extension of the said Agreement. This agreement essentially closes the relevant market for organization of volleyball events in India to other competitors of Baseline.
Conclusion-
These agreement imposes many restrictions and may result in denial of market access to other competitors of Baseline as mentioned under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act and 4(2)(b) of the Act. It also places certain restrictions on players as they would not be allowed to participate in an event if it fell on the same dates of Baseline league.
In view of the above arguments, the commission held that needs to be examined through an investigation by the DG, to determine whether the same resulted in violation of provisions of the Act including that of Section 4.
