Probe into Volleyball Group's Alleged Market Dominance and Player Service Restrictions in India.

The Commission concluded that the Volleyball Federation of India (VFI) is an enterprise under the Competition Act, 2002, and holds a dominant position in the markets for organizing professional volleyball tournaments and services of volleyball players in India. Allegations were made regarding VFI's exclusive agreement with Baseline Ventures, potentially violating Section 4 of the Act by restricting market access and limiting player services. Consequently, the Commission ordered the Director General to investigate these allegations and report back within 150 days, while emphasizing that the observations are preliminary and not a final judgment on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Volleyball Federation of India (VFI) is an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002.
2. Delineation of the relevant market for assessing VFI’s dominance.
3. Whether VFI holds a dominant position in the relevant market.
4. Alleged abuse of dominant position by VFI.
5. Anti-competitive nature of the agreement between VFI and Baseline Ventures (India) Private Limited (Baseline).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Volleyball Federation of India (VFI) is an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002:
The Commission observed that VFI, as per its Constitution and bye-laws, is established to organize national and international championships, generating revenue for VFI. VFI collects affiliation and other fees from its members, making it an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Act.

2. Delineation of the relevant market for assessing VFI’s dominance:
The Commission noted that the relevant market comprises the 'relevant product market' and 'relevant geographic market.' The relevant product market for assessing restrictions on organizations of volleyball events is the "market for organization of professional volleyball tournaments/events." For assessing restrictions on volleyball players, the relevant product market is the "market for services of volleyball players." The geographic dimension for both product markets covers the whole of India, making the relevant markets:
- The 'market for organization of professional volleyball tournaments/events in India.'
- The 'market for services of volleyball players in India.'

3. Whether VFI holds a dominant position in the relevant market:
The Commission observed that VFI is the only national-level volleyball federation in India, the sole governing body of the game of volleyball and the players associated with it. VFI's regulatory powers and exclusive rights to organize national and international volleyball events grant it a dominant position in both relevant markets.

4. Alleged abuse of dominant position by VFI:
The Informants alleged that VFI granted exclusive rights to Baseline to organize a Volleyball League for ten years, prohibiting any other person or enterprise from organizing a similar league. VFI also restricted volleyball players from participating in other leagues or international events if the dates clashed with Baseline's league. The Commission noted that such restrictions might result in denial of market access to other competitors and limit the provision of services of volleyball players, potentially violating Section 4 of the Act.

5. Anti-competitive nature of the agreement between VFI and Baseline Ventures (India) Private Limited (Baseline):
The Commission observed that certain clauses of the agreement between VFI and Baseline placed a prohibition on players participating in Baseline's league from participating in other similar tournaments for ten years. These restrictions could be extended if the agreement is renewed. The Commission noted that such restrictions appear to limit the provision of services of volleyball players and foreclose the relevant market for organizing professional volleyball tournaments/events in India to other competitors of Baseline.

Conclusion:
The Commission directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the matter and submit a report within 150 days. The investigation should determine whether the conduct of VFI resulted in a violation of the provisions of the Act, including Section 4. The DG is also at liberty to investigate any anti-competitive conduct of other entities/persons encountered during the investigation. The Commission clarified that the observations made in the order do not constitute a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

---