The CRTC has selected Rogers Communications Canada Inc.’s offer for distributing OneSoccer after both Rogers and the channel’s operator, Timeless Inc., agreed that it should be accepted.
In Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-284, issued October 30, 2026, the commission said establishing the rate remedied its earlier finding that Rogers had subjected Timeless to an undue disadvantage by refusing to carry OneSoccer.
The public decision does not disclose the selected financial terms. It also leaves a separate dispute about Rogers’ proposed packaging of the service outside the arbitration ruling.
Agreed offer ended the rate dispute
The proceeding followed a March 2023 finding that Rogers had given itself and comparable services an undue preference while disadvantaging Timeless. In December 2025, the commission directed the parties to enter staff-assisted mediation, followed by final-offer arbitration if they could not resolve the dispute.
Arbitration began in February 2026. A July conduct letter defined its scope as setting the linear distribution rate for the English-language discretionary service.
Final-offer arbitration ordinarily requires the commission to choose one party’s offer in its entirety, with the result binding on both sides. The commission can exceptionally reject both offers if neither serves the public interest.
The regulatory framework normally considers fair-market-value factors, including historical rates, subscriber levels, packaging, comparable services and retail prices, together with relevant policy objectives.
Here, both parties submitted offers and received the other side’s proposal for comment. They then agreed that Rogers’ offer should be chosen. Because of that agreement, the commission considered it unnecessary to assess the fair-market-value factors or policy objectives before selecting the rate.
Packaging question remained outside arbitration
In final comments, Rogers made a procedural request concerning a separate application by Timeless about the proposed packaging of OneSoccer.
The commission declined to address that request in this proceeding. Final comments in the arbitration had to respond to the other party’s offer, so the packaging-related request and submissions exceeded its scope.
In a separate letter issued the same day, the commission rejected Rogers’ request to dismiss the packaging application. It found that Timeless had raised a genuine issue about the Wholesale Code that had not been decided in the earlier carriage dispute or the rate arbitration. The application was not a collateral attack on those proceedings.
The letter said the agreed rate provided the essential term for distribution, with a standalone launch or temporary packaging arrangement possible while the separate issue was considered. Neither the rate decision nor the letter verifies when customers began receiving the service.
