Talks break down over Football Press Coverage

[Lighthouse]

Critical talks between the Premier League and Football League over how matches will be covered by national newspapers and news agencies have broken down at the 11th hour, threatening to disrupt press coverage of the opening games of the season.

The two sides have been locked in negotiations for several months to negotiate what rights reporters, photographers and clients who take content from news agencies such as Reuters and the Press Association will have to cover Premiership and Football League matches this season.

The talks are understood to have broken down on Wednesday night after representatives of the football governing bodies walked away from discussions about a new agreement, with disagreements centring on aspects such as how fast pictures can appear and on how real-time match blogs operate.

Instead, the Premier League tabled a deal which the media coalition claims places highly restrictive limits on the use of news content produced at football grounds.

"They run to 16 pages of legal constraints, which among other things include league controls on how and when news can be published online – and how news material can be distributed to fans at home and overseas," the media coalition said in a statement.

"In many instances they also require users of content to obtain and pay for permission from the Leagues for their coverage."

The media coalition, made of representatives from national newspapers and news agencies, is understood to have been seeking to get the existing agreement, which dates back to the 2003-04 season, changed as it feels the deal is outdated for a digital age and some elements are unfair.

"They [the Premier League] seem to have just been wanting to run down the clock to table the same, unacceptable, deal as before," said one source with knowledge of the negotiations. "They are trying to hold a gun to the head of the media."

Previously, news agencies and national newspapers had brokered separate deals with the football bodies.

The coalition has been trying to remove clauses about "delay and volume windows" which control the amount of text and pictures that can be published online and when they are allowed to appear.

The coalition argues that in a digital age with new media tools such as blogs, Twitter and Flickr available to any member of the public, the idea of limiting newspapers and news agencies coverage is not realistic.

It is understood that the football bodies were aiming to insert a new clause that would not allow a journalist who is reporting live from a match to interact with readers or have elements such as comments enabled.

Another issue is that under the previous agreement with news agencies – but not that struck with national newspapers – there was a need for what is known as a separate end user license for any media outlet looking to take content on matches.

The coalition has threatened that agency and newspaper coverage of football could be disrupted as a result.

"In the absence of meaningful discussions, news organisations are in the process of identifying how best to serve their readers including loyal fans with independent news and analysis," the group said.

The media coalition said that talks have broken down and that the football bodies have refused to even consider the latest proposals.

The negotiators say that a letter written to members of the coalition from the football bodies stating that discussions are continuing is not true.

"This is inaccurate," the coalition said in a statement. "The talks are not ongoing, they have broken down."

While the coalition says it is ready to re-start discussions, there is a chance that coverage of matches could be disrupted.

Rights holders and the media industry have had a number of run-ins over accreditation and usage of content.

Last year, Southampton FC tried to introduce a ban on photographers covering home games, stating that all images had to come from its own photographers on normal commercial terms.

In response, the Sun ran a highly critical report of Southampton's first fixture of the season, headlined Opposition 0, Plymouth 1. The Plymouth Herald ran pictures in the style of a Roy of the Rovers cartoon.

In 2008, Reuters, Associated Press and AFP suspended coverage of Cricket Australia matches and events because of a dispute over accreditation terms.

Ahead of the 2007 Rugby World Cup, a number of international agencies boycotted covering pre-tournament events over a media rights dispute with the International Rugby Board. The Sun used images from the 2003 World Cup to illustrate a double-page spread.

The negotiations for media have been led by the Newspaper Publishers Association – which counts Associated Newspapers, the Independent, Trinity Mirror, News International, Financial Times, Telegraph and Guardian News & Media as members – and the News Media Coalition which also includes news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press, AFP and the Press Association.

[Airfix]

Meanwhile, the humble old football fan gets shafted again.

What a surprise.

[MJG]

And no News of the World either, which for all its faults had good football coverage and inside gossip (don't know how they found out some of the information)

[Lighthouse]

The Premier league season might be due to start this coming weekend, but for some media organisations things have already kicked off in a fairly major way.

You may have noticed when you picked up the papers over the last few days that pictures and copy from football league matches has been a bit thin on the ground. Your eyes do not deceive you: It's because of a dispute over the terms and conditions for coverage of live matches that newspapers, websites and wire agencies have been asked to sign up to.

The previous agreement, set up six years ago, has now expired, and rather a lot has changed since then in terms of platforms, available content and customer expectations: In 2005, 'Twitter' was what birds did outside your bedroom window of a morning.

The media world has marched on and, so says everyone involved, must this new agreement.

The trouble is deciding just how far it should go. The Premier and Football leagues say they are in favour of the new deal removing some of the existing reporting restrictions, but their view of the world isn't as radical as the papers, agencies and websites would like.

What's developing is something of a Mexican stand-off, with on the one hand the vast majority of clubs locking out those media organisations who're in dispute, and on the other, the papers withholding coverage.

The clubs like the publicity their sponsors get via the papers and websites reportage of matches, and the brilliant eye catching pictures that draw us in.

What they don't want is their commercial revenues being hit by the availability of free content, like live text updates, interactive services and photos that compete with their own offers, and those of their partners.

The News Media Coalition, which represents many of those currently locked out in this dispute, makes a manifesto pledge to, 'ensure that the right and duty of the News Media to report any and all matters of public interest, freely and without interference, is guaranteed and defended at all times.'

So this dispute could be presented as a press freedom issue. In reality, it's a negotiation, and heels are firmly dug in: In a joint statement last week, the Leagues gave a cuffing to the news organisations over their reluctance to sign the deal offered, describing this as, 'unfortunate,' and, 'serving no-one's interests.'

They did however say they were open to further discussions, which of course is the reality: The Leagues and the clubs they represent need the media just as much as the media need them. What they're arguing over is the equivalent of the pre-nuptial agreement. The desire for marriage is a foregone conclusion.

In the meantime, if you find yourself short of a match report and some pictures, might I make so bold as to point you in the direction of the BBC Sport football page.

Gordon Farquhar