Volleyball Federation didn’t deny players to participate in a Volleyball league, no abuse of dominance: CCI

Case details: Shravan Yadav v. Volleyball Federation of India - [2021] 129 taxmann.com 405 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson MS. Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, Member.  
  • Ashish Kothari, Adv., Jayant Kumar, Adv. Sandeep Bisht, Adv. and Raman Grover, CEO for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

Volleyball Federation of India (VFI) was a National Sports Federation for Volleyball in India which is recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports and Baseline. It was engaged in the business of providing consultancy services, arranging sponsorships, marketing brands, and sports events, etc.

The VFI agreed with Baseline granting exclusive rights to it for organizing a Volleyball League for Men, Women, and Beach Volleyball in India for the next 10 years. However, the Informant, Volleyball player, registered with VFI filed information alleging contravention of section 4 of the CCI Act.

The Informant had alleged that certain clauses of the agreement restricted the market of organizing Volleyball leagues for all other persons/enterprises except for Baseline for ten years at any level in India or abroad. It also restricted the availability of Volleyball players for other leagues by imposing restrictions upon them not to participate in any other league in India or abroad.

The Players were also restricted from participating even in global events like Asian Games, Olympics, or Volleyball World Cup if dates of said events clash with Baseline’s Volleyball League.

CCI Held

The CCI noted that there was nothing on record to indicate that players of Volleyball much fewer informants were denied any effective opportunity to participate either in Volleyball League or any other tournament of Volleyball, held in-country or abroad during the relevant period. There was also nothing on record to indicate that the formation of any other league for Volleyball or any tournament during the relevant period was thwarted either directly or indirectly by VFI. Therefore, no case was made out against VFI for contravention of a section of the CCI Act.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Surinder Singh Barmi v. Board for Control of Cricket in India [2017] 87 taxmann.com 336 (CCI) (para 10)
  • Hemant Sharma v. All India Chess Federation (AICE) [2018] 96 taxmann.com 35 (CCI) (para 11)
  • Dhanraj Pillay v. Hockey India [Case No. 73 of 2011, dated 31-5-2013] (para 11)
  • Motosyklestistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v. Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECR I – 4863 (para 18)