Decision of the appeals board on the appeal lodged by Confederation Africaine de Football and beIN Media Group LLC

By Olivia Sousa Höll

Introduction

In a landmark decision dated 28 March 2025, the Appeals Board of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern African Competition Commission (“CCC”) delivered its ruling on the consolidated appeal by the Confederation Africaine de Football (“CAF”) and beIN Media Group LLC (“beIN”). The appeal challenged the findings of the Committee Responsible for Initial Determinations (“CID”) concerning alleged anti-competitive practices in the award of media rights for CAF competitions.^[1] The ruling marks a significant development in the regulation of sports broadcasting within the Common Market for Eastern and Southern African (“COMESA”).

Background of the dispute

The dispute arose from two Memoranda of Understanding (“MOUs”), a 2014 and a 2016 agreement, between Lagardère Sports and beIN, granting the latter exclusive media rights to broadcast CAF competitions.^[2] Following an investigation by the COMESA Competition Commission, the CID found that these agreements contravened Article 16(1) of the COMESA Competition Regulations due to their long-term duration, lack of competitive tendering, and bundling of rights across platforms.^[3] As a result, the CID ordered that the agreements be terminated by 31 December 2024, imposed fines of USD 300,000 on each party, and directed CAF to adopt a new framework for awarding media rights in the future.^[4] CAF and beIN lodged separate appeals, which were consolidated and heard by the Appeals Board in February 2025.^[5]

Legal framework

The central legal provision at issue was Article 16(1) of the COMESA Competition Regulations, which prohibits agreements that may affect trade between Member States and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition.^[6]

In their defence, CAF and beIN invoked Article 16(4), which allows an exemption where restrictive agreements can be shown to yield efficiency benefits.^[7] Specifically, the exemption requires proof that:

1. The agreement improves the production or distribution of goods or promotes technical or economic progress;
2. Consumers receive a fair share of the resulting benefits;
3. The restrictions are indispensable to achieving those benefits; and
4. The agreement does not eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market.^[8]

The CCC argued that these justifications are cumulative, and that each one must be satisfied for the exemption to apply.^[9] It maintained that CAF and beIN failed to discharge their burden of proof, particularly by not showing that the restrictions were indispensable or that consumers benefited proportionately from the arrangement.^[10] According to the CCC, the claimed efficiencies, such as increased investment and improved broadcast quality, could be achieved through less restrictive means, such as open and transparent tendering processes.^[11]

This interpretation reflects COMESA’s strict approach to Article 16(4), as further explained in its Restrictive Business Practices Guidelines.^[12]

The appeals process 

Following the CID’s decision on 22 December 2023, the appellants filed their Notices of Appeal in April 2024, arguing that the CID’s conclusions were flawed both factually and legally.^[13] Key arguments raised included:

1. The absence of actual evidence of foreclosure or harm to competition;
2. Inappropriate market definition that excluded substitutable football content;
3. Overreliance on stakeholder interviews lacking methodological rigour;
4. Failure to consider the pro-competitive benefits of the agreements; and
5. Imposition of fines without due process.^[14]

The CCC responded by defending the findings of the CID and highlighting that the exclusive and bundled nature of the agreements had the potential to restrict competition, even if actual foreclosure was not demonstrated.^[15] The CCC also refuted the claim that the SSNIP test (Small but Significant Non-transitory Increase in Price) was a required tool for market definition, noting that qualitative and contextual factors could be equally relevant.^[16]

Decision of the appeals board

Rather than deliver a ruling on the merits of each legal issue, the Appeals Board opted to confirm a Commitment Agreement negotiated between the parties.^[17] The Board emphasized that the agreement allowed for an efficient and proportionate resolution and noted that its authority to confirm such commitments is provided under Article 15(1) of the Regulations and Article 3(2) of the Appeals Board Rules.^[18]

The terms of the Commitment Agreement included the following:

1. The 2016 beIN Agreement would remain in force until 31 December 2028, to avoid disruption of broadcasts;
2. CAF and beIN would each pay USD 300,000 to the Commission on a non-admission of liability basis;
3. CAF committed to conduct future tenders for broadcasting rights through open, transparent, and competitive processes in line with recent commitments made in other cases.^[19]

Importantly, the Appeals Board found that maintaining the current agreement until 2028 would not hinder competition due to the additional behavioural safeguards included in the Commitment.^[20]

Implications for African Football

The outcome of this appeal will have far-reaching implications for the governance of sports media rights across Africa. By endorsing a settlement that preserves the current arrangement in the short term but introduces future-oriented competition safeguards, the Appeals Board has sent a clear message that long-term exclusive deals without competitive processes will no longer go unchallenged.

This decision aligns COMESA with global best practices, such as those adopted by the European Commission and FIFA/UEFA and provides a blueprint for other African sports bodies seeking to commercialize rights while respecting regional competition law.^[21] For broadcasters, it opens new opportunities to participate in tender processes. For viewers, it promises greater access and potentially more diverse coverage of African football events.

Conclusion

The Appeals Board’s decision represents a balanced and pragmatic resolution of a complex legal and economic dispute. While avoiding a full ruling on the disputed legal questions, the confirmation of the Commitment Agreement underscores COMESA’s dual priorities: promoting competition and preserving market stability. The legacy of this case will likely be seen in a more open and competitive broadcasting landscape for African football in the years to come

---

^[1] Appeals Board Decision, COMESA Competition Commission, 28 March 2025, p.2.

^[2] (n 1 above) paras 4-5.

^[3] (n 1 above) para 6.

^[4] (n 1 above) para 8.

^[5] (n 1 above) para 3. 

^[6] COMESA Competition Regulations, Art. 16(1)

^[7] (n 6 above) Art. 16(4)

^[8] (n 6 above) Art. 16(4).

^[9] (n 1 above) para 51.

^[10] (n 1 above) para 51.

^[11] (n 1 above) para 51. 

^[12] COMESA Restrictive Business Practices Guidelines (2019), para 52.

^[13]  (n 1 above) paras 1-2.

^[14] (n 1 above) paras 10-11, 34-36.

^[15] (n 1 above) paras 13-16, 34-36.

^[16] (n 1 above) paras 20-21.

^[17] (n 1 above) para 59.

^[18] (n 6 above) Art. 15(1); Appeals Board Rules, Art. 3(2).

^[19] (n 1 above) paras 64-65.

^[20] (n 1 above) para 65. 

^[21] (n 1 above) paras 45-46.