“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” is part of the opening line of Charles Dickens famous novel “A Tale of Two Cities.” The book was published way back in 1859.
It was a tale of contrasts, on the one hand that human prosperity cannot be matched with human despair. Then there is the class war between the rich and the poor, and he also writes of a time of despair and suffering on one hand, and conversely joy and hope on the other.
He could well have been writing about the world of sport at the start of the 21st century. To be fair it is not just the sporting world where the rich are enjoying luxurious lives while on the other hand, the poor are struggling. In this tale Dickens compares two cities, London and Paris, just as in the sporting world we compare today the wealth of various countries International programs, the wealth of the top clubs and salaries of the top players in tier one sports, to the have nots who are equally as dedicated but have opted to excel in tier two sport and attract little or no funds.
However it is not just when it comes to the athletes, the clubs and the teams where this quote rings true today, but also in the sporting media. Never has so much sport been so accessible to so many people. Never have so many different sports been so accessible to so many people.
Sport is big business, be it the teams and the athletes themselves, be it the clothes they wear, or the products they endorse, sport is a massive industry. To qualify for a World Cup or an Olympic games is often the lifeblood for a sport for the next four years. The knock-on effect is huge in terms of sponsorship, Government funding and the media coverage that can be gained.
The fact that FIFA paid the Football Association of Ireland EUR5Million to not proceed with legal action after Thierry Henry’s infamous handball cost the Irish a place at the 2010 World Cup finals is an indication as to what qualification means. Umbro who were the Irish kit sponsor said that this cost them as a manufacturer millions, as there would be no Irish fans wearing their shirts in the crowd in South Africa.
There are now dedicated television stations to sport, showing sport from across the globe over several channels 24 hours a day. There are dedicated Sports radio shows and stations, as well as magazines and on-line publications. There are podcasts on sport. There is live streaming of sport, sporting documentaries, sporting books. There is so much sport at your fingertips. Yet as always when there is a glut of anything you have to wade through a great deal that is of an inferior quality, and the good stuff becomes harder to find. Alternatively you have to know where to look and which sources you can trust if you want the truth. Sadly there are far too many “stories” which are simply rumours, propaganda packaged as a story, or those reporting fail to share all the facts.
Case in point being many on-line and print media outlets. The reporting is formulaic. Open with a quote from the coach, mention the goalscorers, then end with another quote. These reports are filled with statistics, but no description as to what actually happened in the game. They assume that everyone tuned in to watch. Then frequently to pad out the report they share Tweets on the game from all and sundry. Tweets that many would have already read if the follow that individual, and if they don’t couldn’t care less what they had to say.
Of course Twitter has become its own forum. The problem with Twitter is it has a habit of getting athletes into trouble. As discussed on Podcast #52 The Battle of the Brands the lines often become blurred between an Athlete and their image, and that of their team, frequently they come into conflict. Then we have the inappropriate comments being made. There really is a strong case to not allow a contracted athlete a twitter account if only to protect them from themselves. Freedom of speech is one thing, but having that freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. It doesn’t mean that you can simply say what you like. That is why there are slander and libel laws.
The other problem that has arisen with so much sport over so many platforms is that everyone seems to feel that it is now their right to have every event made available for them to view, and for free. What they fail to realise is live broadcasts cost money. That television stations pay a great deal for exclusive rights to tournaments and matches, and every time someone shares a clip off their television they put that coverage in jeopardy. Which in turn puts the income derived from Television revenue in jeopardy. As General Manager and Executive Producer for Astro Arena John Nienaber said on Podcast# 66 Can Television Continue to Subsidise Sport, leakage is a major issue for broadcasters.
As we all know in the live streaming space there are varying degrees of production quality. Usually based on what those paying for the stream are prepared to invest. No matter the investment there are always those who moan and want a television-style coverage, but fail to appreciate that those who have been good enough to make it available to them, may not have the budget for such production costs.
Like Twitter in this space there are issues with people forgetting basic courtesies. In today’s self-centred world, where manners and etiquette are words quickly becoming extinct, many people forget that someone has had to pay for the livestream they are watching. Someone had to invest in the equipment to make the livestream possible. They think that it is fine to rip it off the internet and post under their own banner. Yet the You Tube copyright laws state that simply giving credit to the originator is not enough to allow you to use this footage. It also states that the footage should not be altered in anyway. So to edit a clip, is altering it, to edit out commentary is altering it. To insert your own graphics is altering it. The question for those who have at some point done this is would they cut a section out of a Harry Potter film, or a David Attenborough documentary without asking permission and giving the owners of that footage credit? The answer is probably. ‘no.’ So why when it comes to sport do people believe that they can?
Some of the issues here come down to the fact that Fair Use laws differ from country to country. As You Tube warns, “even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.” As You Tube warns, simply acknowledging the original owner may not be enough when it comes to Fair Use. “Phrases such as “all rights go to the author” and “I do not own” do not automatically mean you are making fair use of that material — nor do they mean you have the copyright owner’s permission.”
The problem lies in the fact that sports fans today are used to getting the content they want, when they want it and for free, so they think that it is free for them to use.
The big issue now is that there is so much sport out there and there are now so many breaches on a daily basis that these breaches are becoming increasingly hard to police. The only option moving forward is to make all of the events or games pay-per-view. The problem with that is that the sponsors, who are ultimately paying the costs of the production want the eyeballs. The more eyeballs on the game, the more they are likely to invest; despite the fact that a paying audience is bound to be far more targeted.
While it may appear that these are the best of times because there is so much sport available, it can also be the worst of times as the quality as the sheer volume of sport being delivered means that at times the coverage is dreadful. Experts are convinced that with today’s ‘noise’ quality will stand out from quantity, and that those who offer quality will ultimately stay the course. The question at the moment is can they afford to continue to pay if a poorer quality product is accepted by the the public. They certainly will not continue to pay the current sums of money if the public continue to “leak” footage that Associations and Television stations have paid for!
Quality may well win out in the end, but one thing is for sure the times will no doubt be a changing in the next five years as access to live sport tightens up. When the legal system catches up with technology. When it does it may end up that sport will only be available to those with the ability to pay. We may well see more pay per view options or a more specific subscriber option; certainly the Fox Sports subscribers in Australia feel that they should get the online Kayo Sports service for free, rather than paying twice! Ultimately those in the know are of the strong belief that those who really want to watch, will pay. Which surely goes against the ethos of sport, which is in the main for the masses. To help them escape in the way that going to the movies helps them escape to another place for two hours.
