Following Phumelela’s 19 July 2016 press release discussing the Competition Commission’s decision not to refer the Bookmakers’ Tellytrack complaint to the Competition Tribunal, the South African Bookmakers’ Association issued the following response:-
1. The South African Bookmakers Association is aware of recent press statements and articles regarding the outcome of the Competition Commission investigation into a complaint made by the KwaZulu-Natal Bookmakers’ Society, the former name of the South African Bookmakers Association. Given the unbalanced view that now exists in the public domain, the Association seeks to ensure that the outcome is properly ventilated to ensure a factually correct and balanced view.
2. The decision of the Competition Commission must be understood in the context of the background, more particularly that, as a result of an interim directive issued by the Gauteng Gambling Board in 2014 and two subsequent High Court decisions, which decisions still stand, a large number of bookmakers have been paying a lower fee for the Tellytrack channel and not paying the higher fee demanded by Tellytrack. This meant that the Commission was not able to assess the impact of the fee increase being demanded by Tellytrack. In this regard attention is drawn to the following statements from the Commission’s Notice of Non-Referral.
“3.5 With respect to the excessive pricing allegation, the Commission has evidence which suggest that the new Tellytrack fee might be higher especially when one disregards the costs incurred by horseracing administrators at the horseracing administration level. However, the Commission is aware that the new Tellytrack fee is not yet fully or consistently implemented, several Bookmakers have rejected the price. The National/Provincial Gambling Boards are also considering the same conduct.
3.6 Lastly, the Commission wishes to advise that because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint has not happened as some Bookmakers are still not paying the price pending legal proceedings, the analysis relating to section 4 and 8 are mainly speculative and as such it would be impossible to show anti-competitive effects resulting from the conduct.”
3. Accordingly the bookmakers do not regard the Competition Commission’s decision as being adverse to the contentions of the bookmakers but as a finding that, in the light of the issues described above, it is premature for the Competition Commission to make a decision to refer the complaints to the Competition Tribunal.
4. It has never been the attitude of the bookmakers represented by SABA that they are entitled to the Tellytrack channel for nothing – i.e. they have never maintained that they are entitled to a “free ride”. What they contend is that the fee which is being demanded by the Tellytrack partnership for the Tellytrack channel is excessive and unreasonable. Sean Coleman of SABA advises that, leaving aside for the moment legal niceties and legal jargon, the bookmakers represented by SABA would be prepared to pay a reasonable fee for the Tellytrack channel. At this stage however it appears that the parties (the bookmakers and the Tellytrack partners) cannot agree on such a reasonable fee which means that the litigation and Competition issues referred to above will continue.
