Court backs database owner in live football data case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Court backs database owner in live football data case

Football Dataco has won its latest battle with bookmakers over the protection of live data relating to English and Scottish football matches, with a judge describing the defendants’ activities as “commercial piracy”

The decision, given by the England & Wales Court of Appeal yesterday, is Football Dataco v Stan James and Sportradar.

Football Dataco, which was set up by the relevant football leagues, compiles a database called Football Live. It includes live data such as goalscorers, penalties and red cards for a wide range of football matches.

In the litigation, Football Dataco said that the database costs £600,000 a year to compile and it claimed to own a sui generis database right in it.

Sportradar provides statistics to third parties such as bookmakers which it calls Live Scores. This includes data on football matches which is extracted in part from Football Live.

The case raised a number of issues regarding jurisdiction, database protection, liability and defences. It was further complicated in that Sportradar changed its practice after the litigation was started, so as to include less data for the lower-division matches.

The jurisdiction questions were referred to the Court of Justice of the EU, which ruled last October that the UK courts have jurisdiction where an overseas party intends to target members of the UK public. Sportradar subsequently conceded that it has that intention as it sells data to Stan James, a bookmaker.

In the meantime, Mr Justice Floyd ruled on the substantive issues in the case last May. Both parties appealed aspects of the decision.

The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled in favour of Football Dataco, with Sir Robin Jacob writing the judgment.

He found that there is a sui generis database right in the Football Live database; that UK punters extract a substantial part of it when using a pop-up on the Stan James website; and that both Stan James and Sportradar are joint tortfeasors.

He also rejected the defendants’ arguments under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as “hopeless” saying: “The plain fact is that Sportradar is extracting a substantial part of the Football Live data without paying and Stan James are paying not FDC but Sportradar for the data collected by FDC.”

Football Dataco was represented by barristers James Mellor QC and Lindsay Lane and law firm DLA Piper.

Stan James was represented by Geoffrey Hobbs QC, Philip Roberts and Olswang while Michael Silverleaf QC, Hugo Cuddigan and Bird & Bird acted for Sportradar.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article