Op-ed originally published on Music Ally on 25th June 2025

“Unimaginable in any other sector”

All markets need big companies. 

And the world’s biggest music company is more than that. UMG is innovative and bullish. And a great collaborator on so many issues. 

The only question is whether there is a point at which big becomes too big? 

UMG will be keen to show their shareholders they got their “regulometer” right this time.

But is it realistic?

With UMG’s proposed acquisition of Downtown, many people have said to me why are we back here again? It’s a valid point. The European Commission made UMG retreat already to what it felt was an acceptable size when it tried to buy EMI in 2012 and now the market leader is back again even bigger, and still hoping (somewhat unrealistically) that the EC will see it differently this time around. 

The EC is more likely to have a simple answer – they already dealt with this, the risks they flagged before have come true, despite the remedies. This time around, they won’t take any chances, especially looking at what’s actually been happening in the market compared to 2012. That’s an outright no scenario, forcing a full resale, and asking themselves why UMG dragging them back through all this nonsense.

Take market shares for Europe excluding the UK for example, which is what the EC will review. Let’s take a look at one of the main providers of market shares analysis in the sector for over 20 years. As some countries still have to produce their data, the last year for which data is available for Europe is 2023. Already back above the level for competition concerns before counting PIAS and Downtown, UMG’s market share keeps growing and the gap with its nearest rival is getting wider. To put this into context, UMG’s share is 18% higher now than it was in 2012. Sony has just over half of UMG’s market share – the gap is now 31% bigger than in 2012.

We also have to think of control shares where the EC looks at power across recordings owned or distributed plus repertoire in which UMG Music has a publishing right or administration deal. Just look at what happened when TikTok and UMG had a licensing dispute – it wasn’t just UMG artists that were pulled from the platform, but also those who use Universal for publishing and of course distribution. So yes, please let’s bring the EC’s assessment right up to date.

The market is also different now in other ways. The digital market is three times bigger than what it was before and UMG’s recent demonstration of its “juggernaut strategy” has not gone unnoticed. We are now dealing with a serial acquirer who has the power to demonetise repertoire on Spotify and other services overnight. 

History is repeating itself, and this time it’s all about infrastructure. Distribution is simply another way of getting more market share and we know the EC said they had enough before. It’s also a way of getting control over market access for the independent sector and that’s bad for competition, for artists and for fans. 

Three of the world’s biggest independent distribution options have been bought by the market leader in just a few months: PIAS, FUGA and CD Baby, plus the same on the publishing side with Songtrust, if the proposed acquisition of Downtown goes through. And on top, one the world’s biggest and best royalty accounting services Curve is also being rolled up with this deal.

These are all innovators and disrupters. Is there a saying, if you can’t beat em, buy em? 

The outcome is clear. With fewer independent options for artists and independent labels, diversity and consumer choice suffer as those developing talent become more dependent on competitors to get to market. It’s already much harder for new artists to break through.

The most recent regulatory review of the music market was in the UK. The CMA concluded that the conditions to launch a sector enquiry were met, but because the question was about contracts, they didn’t go further. Not only that, but the CMA specifically flagged further consolidation as a cause for concern.

And to bring us even more up to date, the predictions for streaming by Dan Fowler and Katherine Basset in their Impala report “Combating the Emergence of a Two-Tier Music Streaming Market”  would make any regulator think twice.  One of their recommendations for immediate attention is “restricting and reversing market consolidation to maintain competitive diversity“.

Professor Amelia Fletcher’s letter puts it across from the perspective of an economist and former regulator and of course she has the advantage of being an artist and label, so she also knows how the business works.

Concerns about the commercial data that comes through all these distribution, royalty and other essential services are also growing. Not only does it allow you to snaffle up a rising star, it would be one of the most sophisticated and complete webs of price tracking your rivals imaginable in the music market. And no regulator wants to rely on firewalls, because they just don’t work.

A market where the leader would control not only a big part of rivals’ access to market, but can access their pricing and other sensitive data, doesn’t sound competitive or dynamic.

It would be unimaginable in any other sector.

A US lawyer told me a few weeks ago: “Even an American utilities company wouldn’t try this on”. 

That really summed it up. In fewer than ten words, why this acquisition should be stopped outright. 

Balance and harmony in the music ecosystem depend upon it.