Australian Football League Still Refuses To Accredit International News Agency Photographers, The NCAA Bounces A Play-By-Play Blogger From The Press Box, And The Screws Are Still Tight On Rugby Cup Coverage -- The Collective Media Had Better Not Take Its Eye Off This Ball!

Philip M. Stone June 26, 2007

The digital age has blinded sports rights holders with $£€ signs and they are determined to make big money from what once was the media’s province. And yet the media seems pretty lame in fighting back, and it’s about time it, too, started playing hardball.

To its credit, leading the fight against foul sports rights restrictions is the World Association of Newspapers (WAN). It got FIFA to reverse course last year for the World Cup, but it has had only very limited success in persuading the International Rugby Board to dump its severe coverage restrictions for this year’s World Cup in France. And the Australian Football League has basically told WAN to get stuffed over its complaints that international news agency photographers are not being allowed accreditation.

It’s all down to who makes the $£€ -- sports rights holders or the media.

And just this month in the US, a newspaper reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal 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The NCAA explained, “The reporter's credential was revoked because he continued to blog live play-by-play reports from the press box after being repeatedly asked to stop.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.”

And note those last few words – “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.

The media can jump up and down and yell about freedom of the press issues on how it is their right to report sporting events, and some of these events are even funded one way or another with public monies – the NCAA game was held at a public facility -- but at the end of the day, so far, the media rights holders seem to have the judges ruling on their side.

So unless the media actually buy licenses from the rights holder, or buys material (pictures) from someone who has the exclusive rights, the media are being told there are severe restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

The Australian Football League (AFL) for 2007 has accredited one photographic agency to handle both domestic and international sales of official AFL pictures. It also provides accreditation to Australian newspapers and several foreign publications but it refuses to accredit international news agency photographers. Since it accredits some 200 photographers under its scheme it says there is no case to answer for claiming the league is interfering with editorial freedom and independence.

WAN President Timothy Balding strongly disagrees, and in a letter to Andrew Demetriou, the AFL CEO, he noted, “We strongly hold the view that the AFL’s decision to curtail editorial media coverage for the 2007 AFL season is a dangerous erosion of independent and impartial press coverage, not only of the AFL, but also of global sports if the precedent is replicated by other governing bodies around the world. Such a restriction in any area of news coverage would deprive readers of unbiased photo-journalism and usher in an era in which a legitimate news story could potentially be held hostage to vested interests.

You need to note the all-important words in that paragraph – “if the precedent is replicated by other governing bodies around the world.” For while there may not be that much international interest in Australian football there certainly is in, say, European football, and if international news agency photographers were not allowed accreditation to those football games it would be a really big deal.

Balding then gets to the heart of the matter, “It is unclear to us why accreditation restrictions are placed on photographers, but not on journalists, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this can only be due to the relationship between the AFL and its official photographer. 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.”

The problem with Balding’s premise is that it opens the door to sports rights holders to turn around and say something like, “OK, Tim, we’ll do as you say and treat both text and pictures the same and that means we’re going to impose time limits on when text copy can flow during an event, especially onto online sites.” 

In the NCAA case, live blogging of play-by-play is already banned as part of the NCAA accreditation – how come the US media have accepted that? The NCAA considers blogs as “live representation of the game” and blogs containing action pictures or game reports are prohibited until the game is over in order to protect sites that have paid for the privilege.

ftm has detailed many times how the medias should respond to counter the sports rights bodies (see the various articles listed in the background box above), and WAN in its letter to the AFL has started to flex some muscle by threatening to take the issue to the Australian competition authorities. It also notes that several Australian football clubs are considering a series of matches outside of Australia next year, and no doubt their sponsors will expect the international coverage to provide bonanza exposure, but Balding warns, “We must reiterate that we are unable to consider any coverage of AFL games played outside of Australia while this matter remains unresolved.”

WAN is also in battle with the International Rugby Board (IRB) over its accreditation restrictions for the World Cup later this year in France. While there has been a relaxation by the IRB on video rules the main issues still to be resolved include online limits of five 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 Balding 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.

In the past there was an unwritten understanding that the publicity given to sports events by the media was worth far more than sponsors could ever imagine. WAN has taken up the baton in fighting back against accreditation restrictions, but nothing is really going to happen until the world’s media as a whole stop accepting bad accreditation rules – assuming sports journalists who sign the forms don’t really read them or understand the implications of what they are signing perhaps the first rule should be that accreditation forms from now on are passed onto the in-house lawyers for approval before signature.

A positive sign is that some publications in rugby-mad Australia and New Zealand are refusing to sign the IRB’s World Cup accreditation rules, but this whole sports rights issue is such that the world’s media needs to act as one. WAN can lead the charge but where are national publisher organizations on this? Everyone needs to get involved, and there is not a moment to lose.

ftm Follow Up & Comments