clashed with Baseline’s Volleyball League. Such restrictions appear to be prejudicial to the players participating in Baseline’s volleyball league as these players may have to forgo international events like, Olympics, Asian Games, etc . Such restrictions also appear to have the effect of restricting free movement of participating volleyball players and would have put them at a disadvantage. This does not seem to be necessary for promoting the game or preserving its integrity. On the contrary, such restrictions appear to limit the provision of services of participating volleyball players in the relevant market for services of volleyball players in India and thus appear to be covered under Section 4 the Act. Though VFI has informed that certain amendments have been made in such agreement, post the information having been filed, the Commission notes the submissions of the Informant, in this regard that but for such clauses of the agreement, being anti-competitive in nature, there was no occasion for VFI to make such amendments. The Commission cannot be oblivious to the fact that VFI has entered into an arrangement with Baseline, thereby granting some exclusive rights to the said company to hold a Volleyball League and simultaneously placing restrictions on the players participating in the Volleyball League. This conduct of VFI, in the prima-facie opinion of the Commission, needs to be examined through an investigation by the DG, to determine whether the same resulted in violation of provisions of the Act including that of Section 4.
