Whenever there is an important national soccer match broadcasted on TV, some people are stupefied in front of their TV screens waiting for their favourite teams. But in spite of the fact that these people pay regularly for their cable service, some of them cannot enjoy this TV spectacle whatsoever. On the contrary, they are only permitted to watch mere images of stadium seats crowded with the faces of fanatics or spectators, instead of the match. The reason for this seems to be that these viewers, so to speak clients of a cable service as well, do not wish to pay for an extra charge to watch these especial soccer matches, so they are not allowed to watch them. At least, there is some benevolent person working on the other side of the TV screen offering them the possibility of watching either the benches of the stadium, or the faces of fanatics, but not the match…
This situation leads some people to ask themselves three questions; are some sport programmes becoming less egalitarian? Could there be something like a monopoly either of sport programmes, or TV cable broadcasting? First, the fact that to a particular audience the access of these spectacles of public concern is permitted whereas to others restricted may have nothing to do with egalitarianism. On the contrary, making available these soccer tournaments of popular interest for a group of people, on the grounds that they can afford paying for this extra fee to watch these especial soccer matches, may have much more of elitism rather than a gesture of egalitarianism or equality. Second, there not seem to be neither the presence of a hegemonic power like a monopoly controlling all the existing sport programmes, nor something comparable to an economical group setting up to lobby a great part of the media as in the case of a few newspapers and TV programmes on behalf of screwing into everybody’s head their political perspectives or their distorted version of the present reality. However, there may be something like millions of Argentines trying to watch a soccer event of public interest on TV, but cannot do it since they have not paid for this special charge to watch relevant soccer matches.
The third remaining question is: Is there any law defending the rights of people who for some reason or other cannot watch these public sport spectacles on TV? For the time being, there is an old law of TV and Radio transmission created during the last dictatorship, but apparently falls on deaf ears on the abuses committed on some part of the audience. Fortunately, there is a proposal of a new law called ‘Nueva Ley de Radio Difusión’ that is being discussed in the congress and promises radical changes. For instance, the Art. 65 proposes so far a democratic initiative that is somewhat connected with everything that has been exposed in this paper.
ARTÍCULO 65
La presente ley tiene por objeto crear las medidas necesarias para garantizar el derecho al acceso universal -a través de los medios de comunicación social audiovisuales o sonoros-a los contenidos informativos de interés relevante y de acontecimientos deportivos de encuentros futbolísticos u otro género o especialidad.La SECRETARÍA DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN de la JEFATURA DE GABINETE DE MINISTROS adoptará medidas para que el ejercicio de los derechos exclusivos para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva de determinados acontecimientos de interés general de cualquier naturaleza, como los deportivos, no perjudique el derecho de los ciudadanos a seguir dichos acontecimientos en directo y de manera gratuita, en todo el territorio nacional. En el cumplimiento de estas previsiones, deberá elaborar un listado anual de acontecimientos de interés general para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva, respecto de los cuales el ejercicio de derechos exclusivos deberá ser justo, razonable y no discriminatorio.
[‘PROPUESTA DE PROYECTO DE LEY SERVICIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN AUDIOVISUAL’, pag. 103, 104, http://www.uba.ar/radiodifusion/download/proyecto_ejecutivo.pdf ]
