Whatever happened to fair play? The restrictions imposed by German media group Kirch on live internet broadcasts of the 2002 World Cup finals deserves a red card. In 1920 Jules Rimet, father of the World Cup, officially declared he would organise the first football competition between nations. He'd be furious to see live internet coverage of the finals effectively sent off.
To participate in the finals, players must be at the peak of their game. For those of us without the necessary talent, the nearest we'll get is as spectators to the extravaganza. Interest in the matches has grown phenomenally: the first final in 1930 attracted 100,000 spectators in Montevideo, Uruguay and an estimated 1.3bn television viewers watched the 1998 Paris final. The competition is the undisputed greatest single sporting event of the world, which makes Kirch's decision far worse than any shortsighted referee's.
It's understandable that Kirch, which has paid 1.1bn Swiss francs (£457m) for exclusive rights to the 2002 Finals, wants to maintain control over the privilege it has purchased. No one should begrudge the company for wanting to make a few euros for its owners - that's what media empires do. Yet Kirch should be providing access to sporting events, not blocking it. Last year, Yahoo struck a deal with Fifa to build the official World Cup websites for the 2002 and 2006 tournaments which will show highlights. But Kirch's web blackout means internet users will not be allowed complete coverage of the finals.
This is unsporting, and also ridiculous. After all, the billions who want to keep in touch with the World Cup finals will simply switch on a TV or radio. But then this isn't just about football. It demonstrates the power big business can wield over the internet. Two years ago the International Olympic Committee blocked live web coverage of the Olympic Games. Last year, the Recording Industry Association of America, convinced a US judge to shut down the music sharing service Napster.
The World Cup finals and Olympics may just be sport and Napster an online music catalogue, but lawyered-up companies have the power to censor the internet at will. It's a painful experience for internet users who are used to always available news, music and sport.
The increased choices the internet provides are under threat. Users get glimpses of the potential of new technology, such as broadband, only to find companies like Kirch try to screw the lid down. In the 21st century, we should be allowed to make decisions for ourselves and not have them taken away by old-style media empires. Companies such as Kirch react to the internet with some wonder and a lot of fear. The internet is considered a danger to established interests in the media world. Putting the finals online is a risky strategy - it opens up the potential that others will steal Kirch's broadcast rights, just as MP3 music files threatened the music industry. But just as the music industry's confrontational stance has made it look like a lumbering monster out of touch with its customers, so, too, does Kirch's.
Not webcasting the finals also has a direct impact on how the internet might develop. Few internet users have experienced it any faster than a 56k modem allows. And why should they? There is little on the internet to encourage them. Putting the World Cup on the web would not have damaged Kirch's revenue: indeed it could well have enhanced it in a one-off sale to a large net company. Webcasting the finals live with a high-speed feed is an opportunity Kirch and others have missed out on.
Whatever the best financial decision for Kirch, there is something corrupt about how technology is being stunted and not allowed to fulfil its potential. When Rimet first proposed the World Cup, he could not have anticipated the sporting phenomenon he had created. The World Cup has done much to break down barriers between different nations as they join together every four years in different parts of the world.
The internet has a similar potential; it shows how users around the world can work and play online. The universalising quality of the internet is one of its most compelling features and one that users appreciate the most. That is if companies such as Kirch allow it.
· Alan Docherty is editor of Internet Freedom News
· Comments to online.feedback@theguardian.com
