Commentator Viktor Vatsko explained some nuances of the "unified television pool" in the "Vatsko on Air" program.
Viktor Vatsko— I will note right away that I am not a lawyer and I do not have the relevant education, but from a legal point of view, TV law can also be interpreted as the intellectual property of someone who makes a product called a football match. The host club is responsible for holding a match in our country. He is responsible for conducting the match according to the regulations, he pays fines for all kinds of trouble. Are the fans misbehaving? The fine is paid by the club. Not ready seats in the dressing room - the fine is paid by the club. Therefore, the organizer of a competition called a football match, where the home team competes with the visiting team, should have all the rights to broadcast it.
Why is this story thought-provoking? Why does this story seem to me to have a logical continuation? In 2019, UPL clubs voted by majority to create a single TV pool, then the tender was won by the "Football" channels. But a number of clubs did not obey the opinion of the majority and gave the rights to broadcast home matches to another channel, the "1+1" media group. The then president of the UPL, Thomas Grimm, threatened the separatists with legal proceedings, threatened sanctions. But there was no process. As far as I heard, these were backroom conversations, Grimm did not want to get into a legal dispute with the clubs, which could drag on for a long time. And it's not a fact that it would end with a UPL victory, Watzko said.
