By Ahmad Hathout
Timeless Inc. says it always had the authority to make “strategic and organizations changes” when it hired Mediapro to run the day-to-day operations of OneSoccer, disputing Rogers’s claims that Timeless wasn’t controlling the streaming service when it filed an application alleging the cable giant was giving itself an undue preference by refusing to carry the soccer channel.
The claim was made in response to a Part 1 application filed by Rogers this month, which alleges that Mediapro, the Canadian subsidiary of Spain’s GRUP Mediapro, not Canadian-run Timeless, had full control of the service. If that is true, Rogers claims it would call into question the original carriage complaint and the CRTC decision that forced it to negotiate to broadcast the channel because the regulator, per commission rules, cannot adjudicate carriage issues if one side is controlled by non-Canadians.
“Although Mediapro ran day-to-day operations and provided other services for OneSoccer, this was done on behalf of and under the direction of Timeless,” Timeless said in its response to Rogers. “At all times Timeless retained the authority to make strategic or organizational changes. Therefore, the service was always controlled by Timeless.”
Less than a month after the CRTC made its decision on the carriage dispute, Rogers said it asked the regulator in an April 2023 letter to decide the matter of OneSoccer’s ownership and control. CRTC staff responded in a June 2024 letter saying that it was satisfied that OneSoccer is controlled by Canadians.
Rogers – which is asking for a public inquiry and for the regulator to release what information it has on OneSoccer’s ownership – cited a couple of public matters as alleged proof that the service was controlled by Mediapro, including terms sheets, a December 2022 press release months after Timeless filed the undue preference complaint, and a legal dispute that was settled this summer.
In that settlement, Mediapro transferred all “OneSoccer online service, intellectual property, and all associated rights” to Timeless, which retained the company to do some work for another year. Rogers said this is alleged proof that Timeless didn’t already have these assets – and therefore control – when it filed its complaint and when it had the CRTC rule in its favour.
But Timeless says this just shows the alleged pointlessness of Rogers’s application. The reasoning goes that, even if Rogers is found to be right, which Timeless denies, it is just going to rule in Timeless’s favour again precisely because of said settlement. Timeless cited past cases where the CRTC had allowed undertakings to correct their ownership shortcomings.
“In no case has the Commission…ordered the undertaking to start over,” Timeless said. “Therefore, nothing can be gained by the Rogers Application other than delay. One is forced to conclude that delay is the purpose of the Application.”
Timeless added it understands why Rogers is alleging filing the application. “First, they are part owners of the [Toronto Football Club]. Until this matter is resolved, Rogers Cable customers cannot watch alternative Canadian soccer clubs on linear television. Second, they own Rogers Sportsnet. Until this matter is resolved, a new Canadian sports broadcasting competitor cannot successfully launch, since Rogers Cable controls the majority of the Canadian English language cable business. Third, they own Rogers Cable. Until this matter is resolved they can continue to prefer their own programming services and those of other vertically integrated providers.
“Fourth, live broadcasting of sports programming is an expensive business,” Timeless continued to allege. “Rogers no doubt hopes that by continuing to delay a critical revenue stream to a new independent service, they will force OneSoccer to cease operations. Finally, Rogers is sending an important message to other independent programming services in Canada. They are telling them that asking for carriage on Rogers or exercising their right to file an undue preference application against Rogers is a very risky proposition.”
Rogers told the CRTC that the reason it doesn’t want to carry OneSoccer is because it has limited appeal to viewers.
Timeless is, therefore, asking the CRTC to issue a new order under the Broadcasting Act’s must-carry rule to “prevent Rogers from engaging in even more pointless delays by launching an appeal and/or a judicial review application. We respectfully ask the Commission to dispose of this Application on an expedited basis. Although we have until September 23 to file our Answer, we are filing it today in order to move this matter along as quickly as possible.”
Screenshot from OneSoccer promo video
