Premiership Licensing and the DSTV Conundrum: A Case for Competitiveness in the Broadcast Industry 

This article by James Abati, is in light of the new English Premier League Football (EPL) season and DSTV’s exclusive broadcasting rights for same in Nigeria. He discusses what he describes as the near-monopolistic status that DSTV enjoys and its drawbacks, which include arbitrary increases in subscription fees, offering suggestions on what can be done to change this narrative 

Introduction 

As a new English Premier League (“EPL”) season began, Nigerians, particularly football lovers and fanatics commenced the process of re-subscribing or upgrading their DSTV package to enable them enjoy the action of a football-packed 2025/26 football season. All fans alike, from Manchester United supporters to Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool and Manchester City supporters, are ready to be glued to their tv screens at home, at pepper soup joints and in viewing centres. The magical sport that brings all persons together, regardless of colour, race, ethnicity and tribe is once again in motion, with men becoming excited while their wives, girlfriends and side chicks dread the months-long weekends of football that diverts their partner’s attention. Not to worry though, the result of the football matches usually determines the input and output of the match in the other room, an awry game can lower libido, while a victorious game can ginger the swagger for 90 minutes and more.  

DSTV’s Unfair Pricing

Now to the subject of this article, which stems from the numerous arbitrary increases of DSTV subscription fees due to lack of options and competitiveness in cable TV broadcasting. As we all know, DSTV enjoys a near monopolistic status within the Nigerian economy; gone are the days when it faced competition from other digital satellite television service providers such as HITV or High Television owned by its operators – Entertainment Highway Limited. This has resulted in an unfair pricing regime. For instance, Multi Choice Nigeria has increased its DSTV and GOTV bouquet pricing about 4 times within the span of the last two years, 2023 to 2025. 

The increment occurred twice in 2023 and once in 2024, making it three times within the space of 12 months. The last increment took effect on the 1st of March, 2025 with the pricing going up by at least 20% of the previous price. Expectedly this has led to a loss of about 1.4 million Nigerian subscribers between March 2023 and March 2025, bringing down its subscribers from 9.3 million recorded in 2023 to 7.5 million in 2025. This is according to the latest financial results released by its parent body, Multi Choice Group.

As the preamble of this article suggests, Football is the mainstay of DSTV subscriptions in this fast evolving age of subscribers’ preoccupation with social media platforms like YouTube; streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Showmax and other online content related platforms. Hence football provides an incentive for viewers to still subscribe to DSTV despite its exorbitant prices. 

The crux of this discussion is the licensing right for airing the EPL, which is at the moment an exclusive preserve of Multi Choice’s Super Sport. For context, Super Sport has held Premier League broadcast rights since EPL’s inception in 1992, initially as M-Net Super Sport, then Super Sport after the creation of the DSTV in 1995.

This dominance was however, challenged within the Nigerian broadcast space when in late 2006, its digital satellite television competitor and Nigeria’s first indigenous pay TV, HITV acquired the EPL broadcasting rights in Nigeria for the 2007 / 2008 and 2008 / 2009 seasons. The HITV’s acquisition of the EPL’s right was a major event in the broadcasting landscape, and a step forward in indigenous ownership of broadcasting rights. However, this evisceration of DSTV’s monopoly was short lived, as HITV lost the rights back to Multi Choice (owners of DSTV / Super Sport) starting from the 2010/11 season due to financial difficulties. Notwithstanding this collapse, what is of particular interest is the significance behind HITV’s acquisition of the EPL rights. The Cable provider was able to wrest the EPL rights from DSTV / Super Sport by making its acquisition bid on the premise that it would sub-license the rights to other indigenous cable TV operators. 

This brings us back to the DSTV conundrum, since 2010/11 season, Multi Choice has been the exclusive broadcaster of the Premier League football games, without any serious competition from domestic Pay TV operators. This contravenes the provisions of relevant broadcasting laws, codes and regulations, as well as competition laws.

For example, the 2020 Amendment to the 6th edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code prohibits exclusivity of sporting rights and provides for compulsory sub-licensing. Article 6.2.8 of the Amendment prohibits exclusivity while Article 9.01 aims to promote competition and prohibits broadcasters and licensees from entering into any form of broadcasting rights acquisition in Nigeria or anywhere in the world to acquire any broadcasting right(s) which excludes persons, broadcasters or licensees in Nigeria from sub-licensing the same. Broadcasters are charged with the responsibility of ensuring access by all Pay TV platforms to premium content in the sports and news genres to “generate effective competition at the wholesale level for such genres”. 

Additionally, Article 9.1.1.2 of the Amendment requires broadcasters to offer sports and news programmes and/or channels to other broadcasters for retail to residential subscribers in Nigeria on terms stipulated in the Amendment. Pursuant to the standards and terms in the code, a broadcaster must offer its premium content to other subscribers and fees to be charged to the sub-licensees must not exceed the prorated cost of acquisition of the sports and news programmes and/or channels by a subscriber on the platform of the licensee (that is, Stipulated Prices). The Code grants Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC) the power to compel any broadcaster to license its broadcast and/or signal rights in any genre of programming to another licensee or broadcaster in Nigeria if (i) the genre of programme(s) enjoys compelling viewership by Nigerians; (ii) it relates to a product or service that is objectively necessary to be able to compete effectively on a downstream market; (iii) it is likely to lead to the elimination of effective competition on the downstream markets; and (iv) the refusal is likely to lead to consumer deprivation. All decisions of the National Broadcasting Commission in respect of the broadcasting rights are binding on all broadcast licensees irrespective of any agreement contrary to the provisions of the Nigeria broadcasting code. 

It is evident that the Nigeria broadcasting code makes ample provision for the existence of a competitive broadcasting industry, particularly in the area of sports. However, there is yet to be a visible impact on its applicability as Multi Choice still holds the ace when it comes to EPL broadcasting. Is this down to a lack of vibrant competition or is there a deliberate attempt to sideline indigenous pay TV providers? 

The application of the 6th edition of the Nigeria broadcasting code (as amended) should have come into effect having being promulgated about 5 years ago. The National Broadcasting Commission ought to live up to its responsibilities to ensure competitiveness within the broadcasting industry, particularly as it relates to the EPL, a viewer’s delight. A 2024 NOI polls reports reveals that a significant proportion of adult Nigerians nationwide (59 percent) follow the EPL. With the level of enthusiasm in the EPL in the largest black nation on earth, there ought to be available viewing options for its citizens. 

For instance, in South Africa, Multi Choice’s country of origin, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) airs the EPL on SABC SPORT, a South African free-to-air sports television channel owned by the corporation. This is in addition to Super Sports, which airs the EPL on pay DSTV. 

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the broadcast rights of the EPL is shared amongst Sky Sports, TNT Sports and Premier Sports, with the BBC showing weekly highlights of the premier league on its Match of the Day programmes on Saturdays and Sundays. 

This calls for introspection; how can the intent of the Nigerian Broadcasting Code be brought to life? Firstly, the Government can take it upon itself to acquire the broadcast rights for the EPL and provide live coverage to its citizens through its free-to-air television channel, NTA. Alternatively, a sports channel, NTA Sports can be created for this purpose, to air the EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and other domestic and continental related sports events. This incentive will create viewer traffic for its channel; provide revenue through sponsorship and advertisement deal, as well as competition in the broadcast industry. 

Secondly, the National Broadcasting Commission can open up a bid for broadcast rights of the EPL, to encourage coverage of the premium sports events by indigenous television providers within the broadcast industry. This can be actualised by exercising its powers to compel Multi Choice to sublicense its broadcast rights in the EPL to interested parties, to encourage competition within the broadcast industry. 

Finally, in the novel case of Femi Davies v National Broadcasting Commission, the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos held that the NBC lacks the power to prohibit exclusive arrangements and compel sub-licensing of privately acquired broadcasting rights, as the amendment to the 6th edition of the Nigeria broadcasting Code is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the Copyright Act, and further, that an acquisition of exclusive rights to broadcast a particular programme is an investment for returns, and no one should be forced to surrender same when it is lawfully acquired. The court therefore, set aside the amendment for being ultra vires, incompetent, and null and void, while also granting a perpetual injunction restraining the NBC from further implementing the amendment. 

It is my humble opinion that this judgement is inherently flawed, and the Honourable Justices erred in law. The NBC is a regulatory authority in the broadcasting industry, and it is well within its power to make codes and regulations that guide the broadcasting industry. The amendment was promulgated in exercise of its regulatory functions and its intent to cure a mischief – monopoly within the industry by making a public policy regulation. It is a fundamental part of contract law, that for every rule, there is an exception and in this case, particularly on the issue of exclusivity, regulatory requirements is an essential exception. Certain legal or regulatory obligations may require a party to engage with specific entities, even if an exclusivity agreement exists. Also, the application of exclusivity agreements must be carried out within the corresponding legal framework, respecting the principles of free competition and contractual good faith. An exclusivity agreement must be legal and proportionate, to avoid unnecessary restrictions on competition that may be considered abusive, contrary to public policy and regulations. Also, an exclusivity agreement is nothing more than a bilateral legal transaction that binds contracting parties, as such; contractual voluntariness must not affect morality, law and public order. Therefore, it is my humble submission that, nothing within the scope of the amended NBC Code violates the fundamental principles of fair hearing and natural justice. Rather, it is the monopolistic one brand show of Super Sport that is contrary to public policy, and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.

Invitation 

I therefore, invite legal minds and jurists to revisit this case and take up the matter on appeal to reach a decisive conclusion of the matter, particularly in light of the practice in other jurisdictions, the mischief the amended NBC Code intends to cure and the public policy against anti-trust and anti- competition sought to be upheld by the Commission. This would further enrich our jurisprudence, and determine the extent to which stakeholders in the broadcast industry may effectively compete and promote indigenous participation in the industry.

James Abati, Legal Practitioner, Lagos