Earlier this year, considerable confusion arose when JTBC exclusively broadcast the Winter Olympics for the first time without any terrestrial coverage. Viewers complained that they did not know which channel to watch, and many lamented the inability to follow a wide range of events when only one channel carried the broadcasts. More importantly, households without paid broadcasting subscriptions and residents in remote islands and mountainous areas with poor reception were excluded from a global event, leaving a bitter aftertaste that the entire population could not universally share the moments when national athletes competed after years of training.
Concerns spread further as JTBC secured exclusive domestic broadcasting rights for the Olympics and World Cup from 2026 through 2032, raising fears that viewers might not be able to properly watch the North and Central American World Cup scheduled for June this year. This became the spark that ignited a full-fledged debate over "universal viewing rights" for events of widespread national interest. The immediate inconvenience was resolved when public broadcaster KBS purchased the rights to the North and Central American World Cup from JTBC for joint coverage. However, on May 7, 2026, an amendment to the Broadcasting Act strengthening universal viewing rights for events of national interest passed the plenary session of the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee, putting the legislative debate in full swing.
The discussion of universal viewing rights has evolved alongside changes in the media market and the expansion of the sports market. Since the 1990s, the three terrestrial broadcasters KBS, MBC, and SBS have jointly purchased broadcasting rights to major sports events through a "Korea Pool" arrangement. Then, around 2005, when marketing agency IB Sports gained exclusive rights to Asian Football Confederation (AFC) matches, concerns emerged that games of major national interest could no longer be watched for free on terrestrial broadcasters and that intensifying competition for rights could cause prices to skyrocket.
In response, the concept of "universal viewing rights" was introduced into the Broadcasting Act in 2007 to guarantee everyone's right to watch major events of high national interest. Specifically, regulations were introduced requiring broadcasters to secure means accessible to at least 90 percent of all households for events of national interest such as the Olympics and World Cup, while prohibiting unjustified refusal or delay in the sale or purchase of broadcasting rights.
However, the situation changed dramatically around 2011 with the emergence of general programming channels such as JTBC and TV Chosun, and as paid broadcasting subscription rates including cable TV and IPTV exceeded 97 percent of households. A technical foundation was laid in which more than 90 percent of all households could watch broadcasts even if they were carried only by general programming channels rather than terrestrial broadcasters. The "90 percent" figure, originally devised to protect free universal service, became a meaningless provision as the media environment underwent dramatic upheaval over time.
On top of this, the mobile-centered OTT (online video service) market has rapidly emerged as the central axis of media consumption, pouring massive capital into securing broadcasting rights, while terrestrial broadcasters have been pushed out of the rights competition due to severe financial difficulties. The entire paradigm of the media market has shifted. JTBC's acquisition of exclusive broadcasting rights is a symbolic event that exposed the loopholes and limitations of the existing universal viewing rights system amid these changes.
The main thrust of the Broadcasting Act amendment that passed the committee is that for "events of national interest" designated by the Broadcasting, Media, and Communications Commission, holders of broadcasting rights must mandatorily include real-time coverage through at least one nationwide terrestrial broadcaster, either KBS or MBC, regardless of viewable household ratio requirements. Even if a general programming channel holds the broadcasting rights, the law requires it to resell (sublicense) the rights to at least one free terrestrial broadcaster to keep transmission channels open. If this is not implemented due to failed negotiations or if terrestrial broadcasting is refused or obstructed, corrective orders and penalty surcharges may be imposed for violation of prohibited acts.
This trend is not a unilateral regulation unique to Korea. Through its Broadcasting Act and other legislation, the United Kingdom guarantees universal viewing rights by dividing events into "Group A" matches that must be available for free viewing through terrestrial broadcasters reaching 95 percent of viewable households, and "Group B" matches that other broadcasters can acquire rights to but must provide highlights and rebroadcasts to terrestrial channels. Additionally, the 2024 Media Act amendment included OTT and other digital platforms and streaming service providers in the scope of universal viewing rights regulation, strictly limiting paid exclusive broadcasts. France also has regulations that prohibit exclusive broadcasting unless the event is also aired on terrestrial channels accessible for free to a substantial number of all households, even when paid broadcasters secure the rights.
With this Broadcasting Act amendment now facing procedures including a plenary vote, the following challenges are posed to our society.
First, there is an absence of realistic guidelines for the resale of broadcasting rights. Given the financial conditions of terrestrial broadcasters, which have entered emergency management mode amid the severe slump in the advertising market, intense conflict will be unavoidable in future licensing negotiations without reasonable pricing standards. Sophisticated and transparent calculation standards must be established in advance that can reduce the heavy financial burden on terrestrial broadcasters while preserving the legitimate investment costs of the original buyer.
Second, the perspective needs to expand into the digital media era. Despite the fact that media consumption through new online platforms such as OTT has fully taken root, especially among younger generations, it is regrettable that domestic discussions on universal viewing rights remain confined to traditional terrestrial broadcasters. As seen in the latest UK legislative trends mentioned above, the system needs to be redesigned to subdivide service channels into broadcasting rights and digital rights, encompassing both domestic and overseas OTT platforms.
Third, there is controversy over the constitutionality of retroactive legislation and infringement of property rights. While the Broadcasting Act amendment is set to take effect six months after promulgation, JTBC has already invested enormous funds years ago and completed contracts for Olympic and World Cup broadcasting rights through 2032. Forcing post-hoc resale negotiations based on a law amended after the contract was concluded, and imposing penalty surcharges for violations, is expected to generate considerable controversy as it raises concerns over infringement of property rights through retroactive legislation.
It is time for a complete redesign of universal viewing rights amid the rapid paradigm shift in the media market. It is a painful point that despite signals of a legislative gap years ago when a specific operator secured exclusive broadcasting rights, the delay in overhauling the system forced the public to endure great confusion and inconvenience during the recent Winter Olympics. I hope this Broadcasting Act amendment becomes an opportunity for genuine institutional evolution that goes beyond mere coordination of interests among broadcasters and carefully guarantees the cultural fundamental rights of all citizens in keeping with the digital media era.
