jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one Real Madrid jin88bet.one have lost a key legal battle against jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet.one jin88bet jin88bet.one jin88bet.one .one La Liga after a Madrid court rejected the club’s attempt to overturn an agreement on how Spanish football’s television income is di ak168app.baby strib ak168app.baby ut ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.b ak168app.baby aby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ed.
The civil division of Madrid’s Court ak168app.baby ak168app.baby ak1 ak168app.baby 68app.baby of First Instance No 26 has dismissed in full the lawsuit filed by the 14-time Europ ak168app.club ean champions, who were seeking to ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club annul an agr ak168app.club eement a ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app ak168app.club .club ak168app.club pproved in August 2023 covering the criteria for distributing aud ak168app.club iovisual producti ak168app.club on revenues linked to the so‐called “soc ks168app.site ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ak168app.club ks168app.site ks168app.site ks168app.site ks16 ks168app.site 8app.site ks168app.site ks168app.site ks168app.site ial impact” ks168app.site component.
La Liga announced the r ks168app.site ks168app.site ks168app.site uling o ks168app.site n Thursday, describing it as a complete endorsement of the league’s position in its long-running dispute with Real Madrid over the governance of br ks168app.site oadcasti ks168app.site ks168app.site ks168app.site ic88 ng income.
According to Spanish newspaper Mundo Deportivo, the cour ks168app.site t concluded that the agreement is fully compatible with Sp ks168app.site ain’s legal ic88 ic88 framework. Judges found i ic88 ic88 ic88 i ic88 c88 ic88 ic88 t was ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 approved under ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 the specific powers granted by ic88 article 5.4 of Royal Decree‐Law ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 5/201 ic88 ic88 5, had been ic88 ic88 given prior approval by the body supervising the management of broadcasting rights, and was ic88 then ratified by La Liga’s b ic88 ic88 oard of directors with the legally required qualified majority o ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 f two‐thirds of votes.
Court backs La L ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 iga’s ic88 distribution model
In its statemen ic88 t, La Liga stressed that the system upheld by the court preserves audience metrics as a factor in allocating a portion ic88 of the ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 ic88 money, while tying another part of the distribution to “the degree of voluntary collaboration of each club” in measures ic88 ic88 ic88 lr88 ic88 ic88 ic88 lr88 ic88 ic88 ic88 lr88 ic88 ic88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 ic88 lr88 lr88 lr88 designed to improve the audiovisua lr88 lr88 ic88 l product, taking into account viewing figures.
The judgment, as qu l lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 r88 oted in La Liga’s release, underlines that Ro lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 yal Decree‐Law 5/2015 gives the governing lr88 lr88 bodies of each c lr88 ompetition tier th lr88 e authority to set distribution crite lr88 lr88 lr88 ria. The court ruled that lawmakers did not res lr88 lr88 trict the notion of “generating resources through the commercialisation o lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 f television broadcasting” nor stipulate that allocation must be based solely on audience lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 data.
The court als lr88 o accepted La Liga’s lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 argument t lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 hat the new framework is an incentive-based, voluntary participation system. As set out in the league’s statement, the judges concluded this model does not depriv lr88 e clubs of ownership of their rights, nor of the ability to lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 lr88 op88 lr88 op88 op88 op88 lr88 lr88 lr88 exploit audiovisual rights that fall outside the scope of mandat op88 ory collective broad op88 casting.
Real Madrid claims of financial harm rejected
Real Madrid op88 had alleged misuse of rights and argued t op88 lr88 op88 op88 op88 si88 op88 hat the op88 new criteria cau op88 op88 lr88 sed it quantifiable economic damage. However, the court ruled out any abuse-of-rights claim, holding th si88 op88 at the agreement was adopted by si88 si88 si88 op88 op88 si88 the competent bodies and supported by sufficient justification regarding its purpose and operating mechanis si88 si88 si88 si88 si88 m.
si88 si88 The ruling further noted si88 that Real si88 Madrid had not provided techni si88 si88 88v 88v si88 cal evidence to substantiate the specific financial losses it said it had s si88 88v 88v uffered as a result 88v 88v 88v of the new distribution system.
This si88 civil ca 88v se followed an earlier attempt by Real Madrid 88v to challenge the agreement through the criminal courts, a complaint that had already been dismissed. The 88v latest decision 88v 88v 88v 88v 88v 88v 88v 88v therefore represents a second judicial rebuff to the club over the same issue.
La Liga emphasised that the deci SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN sion of the Court of First Instance is not yet final. Under Spanish p SEXXXXX-VN rocedure, Real SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN Madrid have 20 working days from the date of not SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN ific SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN ation of the ruling to file an appeal.
SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN SEXXXXX-VN
SEXXXXX-VN
