A business taking advantage of a dominant position in a market so it can engage in anticompetitive practices is also illegal in NZ, but of course Sky can afford better lawyers than the streamers can....
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/86586127/Sky-TV-lose...
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/86474917/...
That's just not true. Sky isn't being anti-competitive. You are well within your rights to create your own streaming network, find your own boxer and sell it to people on PPV. Sky have exclusivity to the Parker fight because they purchased the rights to the fight. If other people want the rights to the fight then they simply have to outbid Sky. Exclusivity is obviously not synonomous with anti-competitve
That doesn't mean that illegally streaming content which Sky has the rights to is just or ethical, of course. I just think Sky price gouges and offers substandard products and gets away with it because it monopolises sports coverage in NZ. Sometimes that monopoly seems, to a layman, to get pretty close to being illegal itself but those sort of convictions are notoriously hard to get to.
Or, to put it more simply, fudge Sky and the horse they rode in on.