Font Size: a A A

Research On Anti-monopoly Law Of Sports Sponsorship Behavior

Posted on:2014-02-28Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:S L ZhanFull Text:PDF
GTID:2246330398982730Subject:Civil and Commercial Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Nowadays, Sports sponsorship behavior as an emerging market behavior has already become an important activity in the market economy. However, because the development of sports sponsorship in China is short and the relevant market conditions are still not perfect and mature. In this background, the monopolistic behavior arises. At this time, the situation is not conducive to the development of social economy, also not conducive to the advancement of sports sponsorship. So, in order to maintain the healthy development of sports sponsorship market, to research on anti-monopoly law of sports sponsorship behaviors become positive significance. In sports sponsorship, there exist different types of monopoly behavior, including the vertical monopoly agreement and the behavior of the abuse of dominant market position. Although each of these sports sponsorship monopoly behavior is independent, but we can’t deny that there are some certain internal relations between them. For example, monopoly agreement of sports sponsorship is the foundation of the other sports sponsorship monopoly behavior. In other words, different sports sponsorship monopoly behaviors also have internal relations with each other.However, due to anti-monopoly law in our country has its defects, and then led to the regulation of sports sponsorship behavior is insufficient. Moreover, sports sponsorship’s high speed development in our country is just for nearly ten years, the problems of monopoly appear in these ten years are all new problem for which are ever never occurred or focused. Due to these two reasons, they decided anti-monopoly law in the regulation of sports sponsorship is lacking the relevant experience. Thus, in order to analyze our country’s anti-monopoly law on regulating sports sponsorship, and to compare China’s related legislation and judicial practice with Europe and the United States and other countries has its important meaning.Europe and the United States both have a long history of sports sponsorship development, and they are more perfect in relevant laws and regulations. Because of the historical background of anti-monopoly law in Europe and the United States is different, so they may take a different judicial practice when they regulate a specific sports sponsorship behavior. But both of them look rule of reason as their illegality recognition principle while they regulate sports sponsorship behavior, this has an important enlightenment function to our country’s anti-monopoly legislation and judicial practice.Through to analyze sports sponsorship behavior and western countries’legislation and judicial practice as well as considering the reality of the legislation of anti-monopoly law in China, we can conclude that rule of reason should be our illegality recognition principle while we regulate sports sponsorship behavior, meanwhile base on this foundation we should do further appropriate and limited restrictions in view of the different sports sponsorship behavior, then lead those to be the reference of the development of Sports sponsorship career and anti-monopoly law.
Keywords/Search Tags:Sports Sponsorship, Monopolistic behavior, Antimonopoly, Rule ofreason
PDF Full Text Request
Related items