English Premier League team Manchester City FC

A panel of judges at the World Trade Organization (WTO) has found that Saudi authorities had failed to sufficiently protect the intellectual property rights of Qatar-based media giant beIN Sports, ending a years-long, politically-charged dispute.

U.S.-headquartered Sidley Austin and U.K. barristers chambers Blackstone helped guide beIN to victory at the WTO. Blackstone's Stephen Nathan QC, counsel for beIN, called the ruling an historic vindication of Qatar's intellectual property rights. 

The case centred on a Saudi-based sports channel known as 'beoutQ'. According to Nathan, the WTO ruled that, since 2017, the Saudi government has "played a central role in enabling and promoting beoutQ's theft of world sport and entertainment—the most widespread and damaging piracy operations that the world has ever seen."

Qatar has complained that over the last three years, Saudi Arabia has condoned and even supported the dissemination of sports broadcasts using beIN feeds, but transmitted by third-party broadcasters with ties to Riyadh. Defending its position, Saudi authorities had invoked a national security defence. 

Rejecting the defence, the WTO's report found that, between November 2017 and May 2019, beoutQ set top boxes were available for sale in scores of Saudi electronics outlets in the Saudi cities of Jeddah, Riyadh and Dammam, resulting in multiple breaches of international IP laws, which Blackstone's Nathan said was "clearly established".

Nathan continues: "The damage to the Premier League, other rights-holders, and broadcasters, has been colossal, and it has been brought about by Saudi Arabia's promotion and support for the beoutQ piracy, coupled with its abstention from taking any meaningful steps to stamp it out as the WTO panel has held." 

Sidley Austin partner Iain Sandford said the "historic result marks the first time in the 73-year history of multilateral trade rules that a WTO panel has rejected a party's national security [defence]." 

He added: "The panel found that Saudi Arabia abused its right to invoke a 'national security' defense to protect measures that had nothing to do with security. Today's unprecedented decision shows how a State that is determined to play by the rules can use international adjudication to ensure that others do the same."

The WTO's report concluded that Qatar had "established that Saudi Arabia has not provided for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied to beoutQ" despite the evidence establishing ie that "beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities under the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia."

FIFA, world football's governing body, also weighed in with a statement strongly supporting Qatar. 

"FIFA acknowledges the final panel report published by the [WTO] in relation to the activity of the pirate broadcaster known as 'beoutQ' and the active involvement and support that has been provided by Saudi Arabia… in the past three years," FIFA said in a statement.

The backdrop to the dispute has seen a complete cessation of diplomatic relations between Qatar and four Arab neighbours, which has allowed the kingdom to invoke a higher rationale of national security, as it had regarding beoutQ. 

However, Saudi Arabia has mounted a resolute defence of its conduct, claiming that the WTO's findings amounted to an exoneration of any wrongdoing on its part.

The permanent mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the WTO said in a statement that the WTO panel had ruled that Saudi Arabia's "national security [defence] was justified" and that "no copyright pirate [had been] found to be based in Saudi Arabia." 

It continued: "The WTO panel acknowledged that Saudi Arabia 'seeks to protect Saudi citizens and the Saudi population, Saudi government institutions, and the territory of Saudi Arabia from the threats of terrorism and extremism' raised by Qatar in the region."

Sidley Austin's Sandford told Law.com International that there was "no way" that Saudi Arabia could claim such vindication in the case. It was "somewhat bold," and indeed "incorrect" for Saudi Arabia to do so, he said.

The findings in the case are likely to have a major bearing on Premier League regulatory approval for a bid, led by the Public Investment Fund, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, to take over U.K. football club Newcastle United.

Amanda Staveley's PCP Capital Partners, part of the consortium hoping to take over the club, is at the centre of a case taking place before the High Court in London; a dispute with Barclays regarding a $3 billion capital-raising exercise by the bank at the height of the 2008 financial crisis.

The dispute involves fees allegedly owed to Staveley due to PCP's involvement in the funneling of over $5 billion to the bank by Abu Dhabi and Qatari interests at the height of the global financial crisis in 2009.

Read More

Simmons Lawyer Caught Describing Claimant as "Obviously Lying" in £1.6B Virtual Courtroom Dispute