体育比赛电视转播权法律保护问题研究
|
摘要
电视转播收入已成为各项体育赛事的重要收入来源之一,因此在国内外的电视转播市场中,体育比赛的组织者和参加者之间以及大量转播媒体之间对体育比赛电视转播权的争夺越来越激烈。本文在此背景下结合国外相关理论对体育比赛电视转播权的相关问题进行了讨论。
目前国内外对体育比赛电视转播权的性质大多没有形成共识,本文列举了体育产业比较发达的几个国家在这方面的相关理论,笔者倾向于目前比较流行的“企业权利说”。笔者认为体育组织作为一个经济实体,比赛电视转播权应属于其财产权利之一。在体育比赛电视转播权的主体方面,欧美职业联赛的相关俱乐部和联赛组织者之间对比赛电视转播权的争夺也越来越激烈。
在体育比赛电视转播权的保护方面,欧美国家相关法律比较完善。在比赛电视转播权的转让上主要有集中出售、独家协议、集中出售结合独家协议、限制比赛转播数量、联合购买几种方式。在合同的救济方式上主要有行业内部章程、仲裁制度以及法院诉讼几种方式。
本文结合中国足球超级联赛电视转播权的法律保护现状对体育比赛电视转播权在中超的法律地位及发展进行分析,并对体育比赛电视转播权在我国的法律保护提出了一些建议。
Sports TV rights is introduced in the first part. Along with the rising of concept, we claim that the most typical developing example of the flourishing Olympics is sports TV rights. Before the Melbourne Olympic Games (1958), Olympic TV rights was included in the Olympic Charter by the International Olympic Committee, who were going through economic difficulties. At that time, the concept of Sports TV Rights was brought forward and clarified the properties for the first time. It is generally considered that the TV sports rights means the rights of sports organizations or game organizers to authorize other organizations executing live, broadcast, and video, and get payment from them when games and presentations are holding.
The attitude of the sports relatively developed countries to the characters of sports TV rights is inconsistent. In the U.S., TV rights is commonly regarded as kind of properties. A non issued broadcast will be charged guilty, because such behaviors may indirectly decrease the income of game organizers. The laws of the British see no difference from media to audience. They are all receivers of entertainment, just dissimilar ways to receive. In the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, the sports TV rights are considered as a business right, because the competition organizers are responsible to organization and finance, so the organizers have the right to possess the rights. The situations are different in France. The laws make the existence of sports TV rights clear, and divided it from the simple News rights. It has to be pointed out that both German and French considered that if the competition is conducted in public places, anyone may shoot and broadcast competitions under the permissions of the government. This implies that competitions in public places will be broadcast with no TV rights problems. Our point is, sports TV rights belongs to the range of Property Law, because as a non physical property, TV rights is ability of game organizers or participated clubs to win market share and profit, and the concept of thing is becoming more and more wide. So, to make TV rights convert from commercial to legal by bring it into the range of Property Law, will be benefit to the clarity and stability of related laws.
On the problem of who owns the sports TV rights, the provisions of various countries are different. The European Commission considers that for a football match, both clubs are the owners of broadcast rights. UEFA claims their own commercial rights, which means at least the co-owners, and the European Commission has raised no objection. The court in the U.S. judge broadcast rights to the club's owner. The U.K. considers that though a specific game itself have entertainment value itself, it needs to be combined with the League, so this football entertainment services provider should be both host and guest club, but also the Premier League. In the Netherlands and Italy, all the TV rights are owned by sports clubs. According to German jurisprudence and doctrine through the courts, the owner of sports television rights is the competition organizers. Under the French law, the French Football Federation has been designated as the French league's TV rights holders only. The author believes that sports TV rights should be owned by the clubs for all, but the modern professional sports leagues have become a corporate and take some business risks. Therefore to recognize clubs and sports leagues are joint owners of broadcast rights is reasonable.
The second part discusses international protection of sports TV rights. Detailed description of the Europe and the U.S. professional league TV rights sales model and broadcast contract relief are presented. Europe and the U.S. professional league have a variety of modes in the transfer of TV rights, including a focus on sales, exclusive agreements, combining with an exclusive focus on the sale agreement, limiting the number of games broadcast, and collective purchasing. As mentioned before, European Soccer League TV rights has always been adopted as the organizer of the Union League Club, on behalf of the entire season as a whole sale. Except for to strengthen the alliance between the club and its control over the game, its aims are also to ensure that the level and finances of the club's will not be widened, in order to maintain the level and attractiveness of the entire league. For the exclusive agreement, professional sports leagues usually sign exclusive contracts by region with a particular radio and TV station, and authorize the radio and TV station to do the exclusive broadcast of the games in this particular area, while other radio and television stations having no right to broadcast. In the business practice of sales to sports TV rights, exclusive agreement and selling are often combined, that is to say, Professional Sports League sold the league game TV rights to one media only in a particular region. The exclusive sports TV rights sold on the market lead to scarcity and expensive which is beyond the purchasing power of many television stations. Therefore, these television networks hope to get broadcast rights from collective strength. Moreover, even if some TV stations are able to buy broadcast rights alone, higher market risk or the fact that one television broadcast can not independently maximize the commercial value of the development of competition, will also promote its consideration and purchase of broadcast rights with other competitors, in order to reduce the risks and take more efficient use of resources.
Sports Broadcasting Rights is usually achieved through contract. The dispute resolution to the contract of Sports Broadcasting Rights is generally agreed well by the two sides before the dispute. If no such agreements with the two sides, unless the arbitration agreements reached afterwards, otherwise, the courts generally have jurisdiction to resolve. In today's actual operation to the sports TV rights transfer, once there is some dispute, it will usually be resolved by the following means:(a) Sports Association bylaws; (b) Arbitration System; (c) Court proceedings.
The third part analyses the legal protected status of Sports League TV rights, taking the Chinese Super League, for example, and propose a number of proposals to legal protection of China's sports TV rights. In the present practice, whether the Chinese Football Association, clubs, the TV stations, and other news media, often consider broadcast rights equal to copyright, even resulted in some national copyright, local copyright, production copyright, etc. vague irregular language. Similarly, there is no clear ownership of broadcast rights. In the previously formulated National Football League Team Charter by Football Association, the provisions of Article 22 rules that League Football Association is television rights ownership, national broadcasting and foreign broadcasting is transfered by Chinese Football Association's responsibility. TV broadcasting for all regions are authorized by the local television transfered from the Chinese Football Association home club. It provides that the ownership of broadcast rights belongs to League Chinese Football Association, and the clubs have no broadcast rights. Even for sale, it has to be authorized by Chinese Football Association. Based on the foregoing Company the Right to Say theory, Monopoly of broadcast rights for the Chinese Football Association is clearly lack of reasonable basis. The clubs are the broadcasting rights owner, and the Chinese Football Association can only be a common owner to the broadcast right. However, actually the Chinese Football Association, the clubs, and television stations have no arguments on ownership to the broadcasting rights. There are rarely openly disagreements on the provisions of the Football Association Super League clubs that they have broadcasting rights. The reason author is concerned is that first, China's economic level is relatively low, so Football League's appeal is not enough. Pay-TV industry is not developed enough, so the value of broadcast rights itself can not cause sufficient degree of attention from the clubs. According to the above problems, the author puts forward the following four proposals:(a) Delete Sports Law, Article 31, paragraph 3, to decouple between the Government and professional clubs, and to complete the commercialization of sports; (b) Clarify the ownership of sports TV rights, to strengthen the sports TV rights legal protection; (c) Develop specialized sports broadcasting law; (d) Establish a sound system of arbitration for sport.
目前国内外对体育比赛电视转播权的性质大多没有形成共识,本文列举了体育产业比较发达的几个国家在这方面的相关理论,笔者倾向于目前比较流行的“企业权利说”。笔者认为体育组织作为一个经济实体,比赛电视转播权应属于其财产权利之一。在体育比赛电视转播权的主体方面,欧美职业联赛的相关俱乐部和联赛组织者之间对比赛电视转播权的争夺也越来越激烈。
在体育比赛电视转播权的保护方面,欧美国家相关法律比较完善。在比赛电视转播权的转让上主要有集中出售、独家协议、集中出售结合独家协议、限制比赛转播数量、联合购买几种方式。在合同的救济方式上主要有行业内部章程、仲裁制度以及法院诉讼几种方式。
本文结合中国足球超级联赛电视转播权的法律保护现状对体育比赛电视转播权在中超的法律地位及发展进行分析,并对体育比赛电视转播权在我国的法律保护提出了一些建议。
Sports TV rights is introduced in the first part. Along with the rising of concept, we claim that the most typical developing example of the flourishing Olympics is sports TV rights. Before the Melbourne Olympic Games (1958), Olympic TV rights was included in the Olympic Charter by the International Olympic Committee, who were going through economic difficulties. At that time, the concept of Sports TV Rights was brought forward and clarified the properties for the first time. It is generally considered that the TV sports rights means the rights of sports organizations or game organizers to authorize other organizations executing live, broadcast, and video, and get payment from them when games and presentations are holding.
The attitude of the sports relatively developed countries to the characters of sports TV rights is inconsistent. In the U.S., TV rights is commonly regarded as kind of properties. A non issued broadcast will be charged guilty, because such behaviors may indirectly decrease the income of game organizers. The laws of the British see no difference from media to audience. They are all receivers of entertainment, just dissimilar ways to receive. In the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, the sports TV rights are considered as a business right, because the competition organizers are responsible to organization and finance, so the organizers have the right to possess the rights. The situations are different in France. The laws make the existence of sports TV rights clear, and divided it from the simple News rights. It has to be pointed out that both German and French considered that if the competition is conducted in public places, anyone may shoot and broadcast competitions under the permissions of the government. This implies that competitions in public places will be broadcast with no TV rights problems. Our point is, sports TV rights belongs to the range of Property Law, because as a non physical property, TV rights is ability of game organizers or participated clubs to win market share and profit, and the concept of thing is becoming more and more wide. So, to make TV rights convert from commercial to legal by bring it into the range of Property Law, will be benefit to the clarity and stability of related laws.
On the problem of who owns the sports TV rights, the provisions of various countries are different. The European Commission considers that for a football match, both clubs are the owners of broadcast rights. UEFA claims their own commercial rights, which means at least the co-owners, and the European Commission has raised no objection. The court in the U.S. judge broadcast rights to the club's owner. The U.K. considers that though a specific game itself have entertainment value itself, it needs to be combined with the League, so this football entertainment services provider should be both host and guest club, but also the Premier League. In the Netherlands and Italy, all the TV rights are owned by sports clubs. According to German jurisprudence and doctrine through the courts, the owner of sports television rights is the competition organizers. Under the French law, the French Football Federation has been designated as the French league's TV rights holders only. The author believes that sports TV rights should be owned by the clubs for all, but the modern professional sports leagues have become a corporate and take some business risks. Therefore to recognize clubs and sports leagues are joint owners of broadcast rights is reasonable.
The second part discusses international protection of sports TV rights. Detailed description of the Europe and the U.S. professional league TV rights sales model and broadcast contract relief are presented. Europe and the U.S. professional league have a variety of modes in the transfer of TV rights, including a focus on sales, exclusive agreements, combining with an exclusive focus on the sale agreement, limiting the number of games broadcast, and collective purchasing. As mentioned before, European Soccer League TV rights has always been adopted as the organizer of the Union League Club, on behalf of the entire season as a whole sale. Except for to strengthen the alliance between the club and its control over the game, its aims are also to ensure that the level and finances of the club's will not be widened, in order to maintain the level and attractiveness of the entire league. For the exclusive agreement, professional sports leagues usually sign exclusive contracts by region with a particular radio and TV station, and authorize the radio and TV station to do the exclusive broadcast of the games in this particular area, while other radio and television stations having no right to broadcast. In the business practice of sales to sports TV rights, exclusive agreement and selling are often combined, that is to say, Professional Sports League sold the league game TV rights to one media only in a particular region. The exclusive sports TV rights sold on the market lead to scarcity and expensive which is beyond the purchasing power of many television stations. Therefore, these television networks hope to get broadcast rights from collective strength. Moreover, even if some TV stations are able to buy broadcast rights alone, higher market risk or the fact that one television broadcast can not independently maximize the commercial value of the development of competition, will also promote its consideration and purchase of broadcast rights with other competitors, in order to reduce the risks and take more efficient use of resources.
Sports Broadcasting Rights is usually achieved through contract. The dispute resolution to the contract of Sports Broadcasting Rights is generally agreed well by the two sides before the dispute. If no such agreements with the two sides, unless the arbitration agreements reached afterwards, otherwise, the courts generally have jurisdiction to resolve. In today's actual operation to the sports TV rights transfer, once there is some dispute, it will usually be resolved by the following means:(a) Sports Association bylaws; (b) Arbitration System; (c) Court proceedings.
The third part analyses the legal protected status of Sports League TV rights, taking the Chinese Super League, for example, and propose a number of proposals to legal protection of China's sports TV rights. In the present practice, whether the Chinese Football Association, clubs, the TV stations, and other news media, often consider broadcast rights equal to copyright, even resulted in some national copyright, local copyright, production copyright, etc. vague irregular language. Similarly, there is no clear ownership of broadcast rights. In the previously formulated National Football League Team Charter by Football Association, the provisions of Article 22 rules that League Football Association is television rights ownership, national broadcasting and foreign broadcasting is transfered by Chinese Football Association's responsibility. TV broadcasting for all regions are authorized by the local television transfered from the Chinese Football Association home club. It provides that the ownership of broadcast rights belongs to League Chinese Football Association, and the clubs have no broadcast rights. Even for sale, it has to be authorized by Chinese Football Association. Based on the foregoing Company the Right to Say theory, Monopoly of broadcast rights for the Chinese Football Association is clearly lack of reasonable basis. The clubs are the broadcasting rights owner, and the Chinese Football Association can only be a common owner to the broadcast right. However, actually the Chinese Football Association, the clubs, and television stations have no arguments on ownership to the broadcasting rights. There are rarely openly disagreements on the provisions of the Football Association Super League clubs that they have broadcasting rights. The reason author is concerned is that first, China's economic level is relatively low, so Football League's appeal is not enough. Pay-TV industry is not developed enough, so the value of broadcast rights itself can not cause sufficient degree of attention from the clubs. According to the above problems, the author puts forward the following four proposals:(a) Delete Sports Law, Article 31, paragraph 3, to decouple between the Government and professional clubs, and to complete the commercialization of sports; (b) Clarify the ownership of sports TV rights, to strengthen the sports TV rights legal protection; (c) Develop specialized sports broadcasting law; (d) Establish a sound system of arbitration for sport.
引文
1.张旭霞：《浅谈体育比赛转播权的法律性质》,《电视研究》2002年第10期,第70页。
2.王猛：《体育赛事传播权问题研究》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu. cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx?filename=2007053777. nh &dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
3.魏鹏娟：《体育赛事电视转播权法律性质探析》,《首都体育学院学报》2006第5期,第25页。
4.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权与知识产权划界初探》,《体育学刊》2006年第1期,第22页。
5.刘强、胡峰：《体育竞赛及其电视转播权的知识产权保护》,《南京体育学院学报》2006年第2期,第58页。
6.[英]萨利·斯皮尔伯利：《媒体法》,周文译,武汉大学出版社2004年第1版,第215页。
7.参见郑成思：《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年第2版,第285-309页。
8.郑成思：《版权法》,中国人民大学出版社1997年第2版,第58页。
9.乔泽波：《体育赛事转播权知识产权性质的再辨析》,《特区经济》2007年第10期,第244页。
10.梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年第4版,第10-11页。
11.裴洋：《反垄断法视野下的体育产业》,武汉大学出版社2009年第1版,第198页。
12.吴汉东、胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年2月第1版,第54页。
13.黄世席：《欧盟体育赛事转播权法律问题研究》,《法学评论》2008年第6期,第77页。
14.黄世席：《奥运会转播权的法律问题》,《华东政法大学学报》2008年第3期,第110页。
15.熊任翔：《论体育比赛电视转播权的国际保护》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论 文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu.cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx? filename=2004090120. nh&dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
16. Roman Zagrosek and Sandra Schmieder, Centralized Marketing of Sports Broadcasting Rights and Antitrust Law, "Lexis.com法律专业数据库”,https://www. lexis. com/research/retrieve?_m=ab117e8f68ebl756eb44f51 cdda77f52&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAl&_md 5=771c9cel1481964da72d746df3a561c5,2009年6月1日。
17.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期,第513页。
18. Roman Zagrosek and Sandra Schmieder, Centralized Marketing of Sports Broadcasting Rights and Antitrust Law, "Lexis. com法律专业数据库”,https://www. lexis. com/research/retrieve?_m=ab117e8f68ebl756eb44f51 cdda77f52&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAl&_md 5=771c9ce11481964da72d746df3a561c5,2009年6月1日。
19.[美]迈克尔·利兹、彼得·冯·阿尔们：《体育经济学》,杨玉明等译,清华大学出版社2003年版,第131页。
20.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期,第514页。
21.参见周进强：《我国职业体育俱乐部经营中的若干法律问题——职业体育俱乐部法律问题研究之二》,《天津体育学院学报》2001年第1期,第33页。
22.参见杜锐：《央视照旧放弃中超,上海文广独揽足协三年转播权》,《北京青年报》2005年3月9日,第8版。
23.参见季飞：《中超转播上海文广有望牵手央视,足协支持其加入》,《法制晚报》2006年3月7日,第4版。
24.参见张鑫：《上文广出钱央视出力救助中超,足协谈判艰难险无转播》,《竞报》2007年2月27日,第5版。
25.参见韩云：《华奥星空将中超联赛转播权出售给央视》,《足球报》2007年3月1日,第12版。
26.参见李戈：《中国足协正式确定2002赛季联赛转播权》,《江南时报》2002年3月8日,第7版。
27.裴洋：《反垄断法视角下的中国足球职业联赛》,《武汉体育学院学报》2009年第2期,第55页。
28.参见赵睿：《中国足协撕破脸皮,转播权蹒跚走向“大锅饭”》,《每日新报》2002年3月6日,第6版。
29.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权跨国转让救济途径》,《北京大学学报》2004年第11期,第145页。
30.熊任翔：《论体育比赛电视转播权的国际保护》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu. cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx?filena me=2004090120. nh&dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
31.翁飚：《体育比赛电视转播权有偿转让问题的研究》,《体育科学》1999年第3期,第12页。
1.[英]萨利·斯皮尔伯利：《媒体法》,周文译,武汉大学出版社2004年第1版。
2.郑成思：《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年第2版。
3.郑成思：《版权法》,中国人民大学出版社1997年第2版。
4.梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年第4版。
5.裴洋：《反垄断法视野下的体育产业》,武汉大学出版社2009年第1版。
6.吴汉东、胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年2月第1版。
7.[美]迈克尔·利兹、彼得·冯·阿尔们：《体育经济学》,杨玉明等译,清华大学出版社2003年第1版。
8.吴汉东等：《西方诸国著作权制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版。
9.黄世席：《奥运会法律问题》,法律出版社2008年第1版。
10.沈建华：《中国足球职业俱乐部法制建设透视》,北京体育大学出版社2008年第1版。
11.刘春田：《知识产权法》,中国人民大学出版社2009年第4版。
12.[美]布莱克肖：《体育纠纷的协调解决：国内与国际的视野》,郭树理译,中国检查出版社2005年第1版。
13.胡峰等：《奥林匹克知识产权保护》,知识产权出版社2008年第1版。
14.时建中：《反垄断法——法典释评与学理探源》,中国人民大学出版社2008年第1版。
1.张旭霞：《浅谈体育比赛转播权的法律性质》,《电视研究》2002年第10期。
2.魏鹏娟：《体育赛事电视转播权法律性质探析》,《首都体育学院学报》2006第5期。
3.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权与知识产权划界初探》,《体育学刊》2006年第1期。
4.刘强、胡峰：《体育竞赛及其电视转播权的知识产权保护》,《南京体育学院学 报》2006年第2期。
5.乔泽波：《体育赛事转播权知识产权性质的再辨析》,《特区经济》2007年第10期。
6.黄世席：《欧盟体育赛事转播权法律问题研究》,《法学评论》2008年第6期。
7.黄世席：《奥运会转播权的法律问题》,《华东政法大学学报》2008年第3期。
8.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期。
9.周进强：《我国职业体育俱乐部经营中的若干法律问题——职业体育俱乐部法律问题研究之二》,《天津体育学院学报》2001年第1期。
10.裴洋：《反垄断法视角下的中国足球职业联赛》,《武汉体育学院学报》2009年第2期。
11.翁飚：《体育比赛电视转播权有偿转让问题的研究》,《体育科学》1999年第3期。
12.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权跨国转让救济途径》,《北京大学学报》2004年第11期。
2.王猛：《体育赛事传播权问题研究》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu. cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx?filename=2007053777. nh &dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
3.魏鹏娟：《体育赛事电视转播权法律性质探析》,《首都体育学院学报》2006第5期,第25页。
4.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权与知识产权划界初探》,《体育学刊》2006年第1期,第22页。
5.刘强、胡峰：《体育竞赛及其电视转播权的知识产权保护》,《南京体育学院学报》2006年第2期,第58页。
6.[英]萨利·斯皮尔伯利：《媒体法》,周文译,武汉大学出版社2004年第1版,第215页。
7.参见郑成思：《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年第2版,第285-309页。
8.郑成思：《版权法》,中国人民大学出版社1997年第2版,第58页。
9.乔泽波：《体育赛事转播权知识产权性质的再辨析》,《特区经济》2007年第10期,第244页。
10.梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年第4版,第10-11页。
11.裴洋：《反垄断法视野下的体育产业》,武汉大学出版社2009年第1版,第198页。
12.吴汉东、胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年2月第1版,第54页。
13.黄世席：《欧盟体育赛事转播权法律问题研究》,《法学评论》2008年第6期,第77页。
14.黄世席：《奥运会转播权的法律问题》,《华东政法大学学报》2008年第3期,第110页。
15.熊任翔：《论体育比赛电视转播权的国际保护》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论 文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu.cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx? filename=2004090120. nh&dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
16. Roman Zagrosek and Sandra Schmieder, Centralized Marketing of Sports Broadcasting Rights and Antitrust Law, "Lexis.com法律专业数据库”,https://www. lexis. com/research/retrieve?_m=ab117e8f68ebl756eb44f51 cdda77f52&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAl&_md 5=771c9cel1481964da72d746df3a561c5,2009年6月1日。
17.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期,第513页。
18. Roman Zagrosek and Sandra Schmieder, Centralized Marketing of Sports Broadcasting Rights and Antitrust Law, "Lexis. com法律专业数据库”,https://www. lexis. com/research/retrieve?_m=ab117e8f68ebl756eb44f51 cdda77f52&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAl&_md 5=771c9ce11481964da72d746df3a561c5,2009年6月1日。
19.[美]迈克尔·利兹、彼得·冯·阿尔们：《体育经济学》,杨玉明等译,清华大学出版社2003年版,第131页。
20.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期,第514页。
21.参见周进强：《我国职业体育俱乐部经营中的若干法律问题——职业体育俱乐部法律问题研究之二》,《天津体育学院学报》2001年第1期,第33页。
22.参见杜锐：《央视照旧放弃中超,上海文广独揽足协三年转播权》,《北京青年报》2005年3月9日,第8版。
23.参见季飞：《中超转播上海文广有望牵手央视,足协支持其加入》,《法制晚报》2006年3月7日,第4版。
24.参见张鑫：《上文广出钱央视出力救助中超,足协谈判艰难险无转播》,《竞报》2007年2月27日,第5版。
25.参见韩云：《华奥星空将中超联赛转播权出售给央视》,《足球报》2007年3月1日,第12版。
26.参见李戈：《中国足协正式确定2002赛季联赛转播权》,《江南时报》2002年3月8日,第7版。
27.裴洋：《反垄断法视角下的中国足球职业联赛》,《武汉体育学院学报》2009年第2期,第55页。
28.参见赵睿：《中国足协撕破脸皮,转播权蹒跚走向“大锅饭”》,《每日新报》2002年3月6日,第6版。
29.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权跨国转让救济途径》,《北京大学学报》2004年第11期,第145页。
30.熊任翔：《论体育比赛电视转播权的国际保护》,“中国期刊网优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库”,http//epub. edu. cnki. net/grid2008/detail. aspx?filena me=2004090120. nh&dbname=CMFD2007,2009年5月1日。
31.翁飚：《体育比赛电视转播权有偿转让问题的研究》,《体育科学》1999年第3期,第12页。
1.[英]萨利·斯皮尔伯利：《媒体法》,周文译,武汉大学出版社2004年第1版。
2.郑成思：《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年第2版。
3.郑成思：《版权法》,中国人民大学出版社1997年第2版。
4.梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》,法律出版社2007年第4版。
5.裴洋：《反垄断法视野下的体育产业》,武汉大学出版社2009年第1版。
6.吴汉东、胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年2月第1版。
7.[美]迈克尔·利兹、彼得·冯·阿尔们：《体育经济学》,杨玉明等译,清华大学出版社2003年第1版。
8.吴汉东等：《西方诸国著作权制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版。
9.黄世席：《奥运会法律问题》,法律出版社2008年第1版。
10.沈建华：《中国足球职业俱乐部法制建设透视》,北京体育大学出版社2008年第1版。
11.刘春田：《知识产权法》,中国人民大学出版社2009年第4版。
12.[美]布莱克肖：《体育纠纷的协调解决：国内与国际的视野》,郭树理译,中国检查出版社2005年第1版。
13.胡峰等：《奥林匹克知识产权保护》,知识产权出版社2008年第1版。
14.时建中：《反垄断法——法典释评与学理探源》,中国人民大学出版社2008年第1版。
1.张旭霞：《浅谈体育比赛转播权的法律性质》,《电视研究》2002年第10期。
2.魏鹏娟：《体育赛事电视转播权法律性质探析》,《首都体育学院学报》2006第5期。
3.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权与知识产权划界初探》,《体育学刊》2006年第1期。
4.刘强、胡峰：《体育竞赛及其电视转播权的知识产权保护》,《南京体育学院学 报》2006年第2期。
5.乔泽波：《体育赛事转播权知识产权性质的再辨析》,《特区经济》2007年第10期。
6.黄世席：《欧盟体育赛事转播权法律问题研究》,《法学评论》2008年第6期。
7.黄世席：《奥运会转播权的法律问题》,《华东政法大学学报》2008年第3期。
8.裴洋：《论谢尔曼法在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用》,《武汉大学学报》2008年第4期。
9.周进强：《我国职业体育俱乐部经营中的若干法律问题——职业体育俱乐部法律问题研究之二》,《天津体育学院学报》2001年第1期。
10.裴洋：《反垄断法视角下的中国足球职业联赛》,《武汉体育学院学报》2009年第2期。
11.翁飚：《体育比赛电视转播权有偿转让问题的研究》,《体育科学》1999年第3期。
12.蒋新苗、熊任翔：《体育比赛电视转播权跨国转让救济途径》,《北京大学学报》2004年第11期。