体育赛事版权独家授权的竞争损害与福利影响

Competitive Harm and Welfare Impact of Exclusive Licensing of Sports Event Copyrights

作为国内体育赛事领域首例反垄断案件,体娱公司诉中超公司及其图片独家合作伙伴映脉公司“签署纵向垄断协议和滥用市场支配地位”纠纷引发了学术界的广泛讨论。最高人民法院认为,中超公司和映脉公司在“中国内地中超联赛期间该赛事图片市场,具有市场支配地位”,因此判断“是否滥用市场支配地位”的核心在于“独家授权是否具有排除、限制竞争的效果”。最高人民法院从经营权授予的合法性、合理性与竞争性等方面进行了论证,认为该案未违反反垄断法。然而本文研究发现:无论初始竞争状态和独家授权后竞争状态如何,非独家授权的福利总是高于独家授权,独家授权具有竞争损害效果从而违背了最高人民法院所称的合理性。认为:从经济角度而言,虽然有理由证明中超图片版权独家授权不违反反垄断法,但实际上损害了消费者利益和社会福利;从法律角度而言,最高人民法院在独家授权合理性论证上可能忽视了它在排除、限制竞争上的效果,基于谨慎原则应对此进行补充说明。

As the first anti-monopoly case in the field of domestic sports events,the dispute between Osports Culture Media Co.,Ltd.and Zhongchao Co.,Ltd.and its exclusive partner Shanghai Yingmai Co.,Ltd.for"signing vertical monopoly agreement and abusing market dominance"has triggered extensive academic discussion recently.The Supreme Court held that the defendants"have dominant market position in the Chinese Mainland Super League picture market",so the core of debates lies in"whether the exclusive authorization is harm to competition".Then,the Supreme Court has conducted a legal,rational,and competitive analysis of the granting of operating rights and concluded that the case does not violate antitrust laws.However,through our study,it is found that the non-exclusive licensing is always higher than the exclusive licensing whatever the competitive status is,therefore the latter has the competitive harm effect and thus violates the rationality stated by the Supreme Court.Hence,the following conclusions are made that:①From the economic point of view,though the exclusive licensing of image copyright in Chinese Super League and the competitive process of the licensing does not violate the anti-monopoly law,it actually harms consumers and social welfare;②From the legal perspective,the Supreme Court may ignore its effect on excluding and restricting competition in the justification of exclusive licensing,which should be supplemented based on the principle of prudence.