FIFA Capitulates, Agrees There Should Be No Coverage Distinction Between Text and Pictures, And Allows Real-Time Unlimited World Cup Internet Coverage For Both

Philip M. Stone March 14, 2006

It was a battle of business titans – FIFA, football’s governing body, wanted to protect its own commercial World Cup Internet interests by forcing the media to accept accreditation rules that prohibited any match picture appearing on the Internet until after the final whistle. The world’s media joined together in refusing FIFA’s terms, threatening freedom of the press issues, getting governments involved, and warning FIFA commercial sponsors of media difficulties ahead. Result: FIFA hoisted the white flag. No need for a penalty shootout – it’s the World’s Media 1, FIFA 0.

The agreement came after a private meeting between the FIFA President, Joseph "Sepp" Blatter, and the Chief Executive Officer of World Association of Newspapers (WAN), Timothy Balding, who was also representing a coalition of leading news agencies, including Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, Reuters, Getty Images, DPA and EPA.

In a truly important concession, FIFA said it recognized there was no difference in coverage requirements between text and pictures. Previously, FIFA said that no picture could appear on an Internet site until two hours after the final whistle, and then “compromised” and said no picture could be posted until after the final whistle. Now there are no restrictions at all.

”We understand that the publication of images and text must be treated with the same approach for the sake of maintaining a transparent information management policy that respects the Freedom of the Press,” Blatter said in a joint statement.

”I am satisfied that we have been able to amend the earlier position taken and thus to recognize WAN¹s justified requirements.”

Balding said: "WAN and the world press community warmly welcome this wise and enlightened decision by Mr Blatter, which will benefit tens of millions of readers ofnewspaper web sites world-wide.

"In eliminating limits on the number of pictures that can be posted on Internet sites and in permitting their free publication during the course of World Cup matches, FIFA is upholding the traditional values of the free press and preserving the full free flow of information to the media and their audiences", he added.

Before the announcement the two sides were at an impasse. After what had seemed a friendly meeting in January at the highest levels, FIFA  a couple of weeks later sent WAN a letter saying that their final offer was no pictures on the Internet until after the final whistle. WAN wrote back saying it would pursue freedom of the press issues with various governments, not the least host Germany, and it would discuss the matter with FIFA’s sponsors.

That in turn saw Blatter write back to WAN on March 1 complaining of WAN’s “ferocious response” and expressing “dismay at the tone of your letter” and that “the regulations concerning the use of photographs on the Internet are not open to further negotiation.”

So, what happened between that letter of March 1 and capitulation on March 13? We put that question to FIFA, but as usual their media department’s silence on our queries is deafening.  More than likely FIFA came to understand the ramifications of FIFA’s threats. Did it really need this mess so close to the tournament in June? Even if there were commercial issues at stake was this not a problem they should just make go away?

Blatter’s March 1 letter gives some indication that bringing up these issues so close to the World Cup being played was a cause of frustration. In renewing the offer of WAN membership on the FIFA media committee, Blatter wrote, “Such cooperation would make it possible to avoid the situation whereby WAN informs FIFA of potential problems just months before the kick-off of a World Cup that has been years in the preparation.”

 “I think they understood that we were unwilling to compromise and that we intended to take it to the end,” a WAN source said.

It’s the second major media rights victory in recent weeks. The Associated Press made a point of not accepting accreditation to cover the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) tournament in Hawaii when accreditation rules called for severe limits on AP pictures usage. The local media backed the AP and after two days of basic scores coverage and not much else the LPGA backed down and said it was all a misunderstanding. Score another one for the good guys.

Blatter’s March 1 letter does, however, make an interesting observation for future digital rights. 

“The restrictions concerning Internet coverage are only indirectly related to TV contracts and are primarily motivated by the new mobile and broadband markets, which, in addition to moving images, also offer still pictures,” he wrote. If FIFA or other sports federations sell mobile TV rights, for instance, should still pictures be allowed as part of those services? If they are not is that a real violation of freedom of the press?

Freedom of the press in such instances gets somewhat murky because what you are really dealing with are two big businesses. FIFA expects to make a fortune out of the World Cup, and so, for that matter, does the media. It’s not just about providing the free flow of information; it’s about making big money while providing that free flow of information! And the less rights restrictions, the more money to be made.

Any national or international news agency would be very tardy if it has not already completed, let alone launched, special World Cup coverage packages for Internet sites and other media. Those packages usually sell for a high one-off price. It would have been much harder to sell those packages if pictures could not have been published until after the final whistle.

Blatter’s letter also made another significant clarification on a point that had worried the agencies. If an agency subscriber broke the rules would the agency be held liable? The letter made clear the agency would be in the clear. ”FIFA will not hold the agencies responsible in the event of an infringement, but the subscribers themselves. This is clearly stated in the relevant section of the Terms and Conditions,” the letter said.

All in all, take the various points in Blatter’s March 1 letter, plus the capitulation statement, and the media has achieved some remarkable rights precedence. Perhaps there really is a “Power of the Press!”

ftm Follow Up & Comments