With The Exposure Nikon Got With the Iraqi Win At The Asian Soccer Championships It’s No Wonder That The US NFL Wants Photographers Wearing Red Flak Jackets Touting Ricoh And Canon
Go To Follow Up & Comments

Philip M. Stone August 3, 2007

The US media, for obvious reasons, is up in arms with the National Football League’s (NFL) demand that media photographers on the field wear red flak jackets promoting NFL sponsors Ricoh and Canon. But to the NFL photographers are merely moving billboards on which to earn more sponsorship money and the value of such billboards was proven by Nikon at the Asia soccer championships.

Photographers at the Asian tournament in Indonesia had to wear yellow flak jackets with Nikon’s name in bold lettering on the back.  As the fairy tale championship game ended with Iraq winning swarms of photographers flooded the playing field, surrounding the Iraqi team. And on television all one saw at times was a sea of yellow flak jackets prominently saying Nikon. Whatever Nikon paid for that privilege it sure got its money’s worth.

The NFL’s red flak jackets are just the tip of the iceberg of the problems the US media is now having with the league that also wants to severely restrict the video that media online sites show.

Under the rules proposed for the upcoming season the NFL is restricting online video to 45 seconds maximum per day, the video can be shown for up to 24 hours online but then must be removed – no archiving. The video can only be used for editorial purposes and the 45 seconds includes not only team member speaking (but not counting the talking head of the journalist asking the question) and also include footage of team practices.

In effect the NFL is trying on what sporting organizations around the world, including the US, are doing to make as much money as they can from digital rights, and restricting media who don’t buy those rights to as little usage that can be mandated.

Don’t forget that just in June a Louisville Courier-Journal reporter was bounced from a NCAA (college/university) baseball game because he was live blogging play-by-play from the press box, something not allowed under NCAA accreditation rules.

The NCAA explained, “The reporter's credential was revoked because he continued to blog live play-by-play reports from the press box after being repeatedly asked to stop. Any transmission of live play-by-play information by any entity other than a media rights holder is prohibited.”

The media raised such a hue and cry that the NCAA then revised its rules to say its rules affected only video blogging and not text.

But note those last few words in what the NCAA originally said – “information by any entity other than a media rights holder is prohibited.” And that is what is going on the world over. Sports rights owners who in the past have successfully sold exclusive television rights are now selling exclusive digital rights to their events, too.

Global media organizations around the world are protesting against such restrictions, but the rights owners seem to have the law on their side and the media is going to have to fight back using commercial means at its disposal.

As ftm has pointed out several times in the past, when the UK’s premier League (soccer) tried various restrictions back in 2005 the UK national newspapers fought back by hitting the League where it hurts the most – in its sponsors' pockets.  Newspapers stopped naming the sponsor of the Premier League; no longer could you see a sponsor’s logo on a jersey in a news picture – photo editors made sure to use a photo that gave no free advertising. Within a couple of weeks the League capitulated and a deal was done.

FIFA, the world body governing soccer, tried to restrict media coverage for the 2006 World Cup in Germany but the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) started banging on the table about freedom of the press, threatening to get the politicians involved, and in the end FIFA figured the bother was more than it was worth, withdrew restrictions, but no doubt is nursing its wounds and preparing draconian rules for the next Cup.

WAN also started the fight against the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) proposed media restrictions for this year’s World Cup in France starting September 7. Now the International Sports Journalists Association (SJA) has picked up the mantle, representing news organizations around the world, and has asked for a meeting with rugby officials. In a not so subtle hint as to what could happen if there no rights agreement the SJA wrote, “It is important that the coalition members have a clear view of your position so that they can decide the extent to which they wish to modify the coverage they give to the Rugby World Cup, its sponsors and the sport of rugby in general. It is clearly vital that there is a dialogue and the terms eventually agreed on need to reflect not just the commercial concerns of the IRB but also the freedom of the press and the immense amount of publicity, editorial space and direct investment in coverage contributed by the media.”

While the IRB had already relaxed some of its proposed video rules it still insists on  implementing  online limits of five still pictures per half and just two for each period of extra time, a ban on newspapers selling their pictures, and a ban on the superimposition of text on pictures.

To WAN it all boils down to one specific matter – “The rights of the press to provide independent photographic coverage for editorial purposes.” For the rights holders, it’s all about making even more money from their events.

The NFL restrictions are, regretfully, a sign of the times to come. Don’t forget that The National Basketball Association (NBA), coming off the lowest TV rated finals series in its history, suddenly signs a huge new contract with ESPN-ABC and TNT at 20% more than the previous contract. How could such poor ratings lead to a higher fee? Simple, the new contract allows the rights holders to show the games also on such digital platforms as the Internet and mobile phones. And you just know that having paid a fortune for those rights they are going to guard very jealously against what video others are allowed to put on their sites.

The NBA deal shows the increasing importance of the TV networks to the sporting bodies. Newspapers are all well and good, but it is TV that drives in the money and its TV willing to buy those exclusive digital rights, too.

To fight the NFL, The Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) and the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) have each written letters to the NFL. The NFL’s response so far is basically “like it or lump it.”

In setting out its 2007 digital policy the NFL wrote, “The success of the National Football League is due in part to substantial news media coverage throughout the season and entire year. News media outlets have also benefited from their NFL coverage, as NFL news and commentary attracts fans to all forms of media, including emerging distribution platforms.”  In other words, “You may well scratch our backs, but we scratch yours, too.”

Rich Gigli, assistant managing editor/photo for the Record in Hackensack, New Jersey (it covers the New York Jets and the New York Giants) told Editor & Publisher, “The networks are trying to control. I think it has gotten to the point where they (the NFL) can take us or leave us.”

It’s probably going to take more than letters to get the NFL to budge. A couple of weeks in the pre-season of not covering training camps, exhibition games and the like and then the NFL, and more particularly its sponsors, can decide whether they have crossed that line in the sand.

ftm Follow Up & Comments

NFL Stands Firm On Photographer Flak Jackets - August 8, 2007
The National Football League says it is not going to back down on its requirements that photographers on the playing field must wear red flak jackets with the names of NFL sponsors Reebok and Canon imprinted on the back....MORE