A football club which has come under fire after imposing a ban on press photographers has sought to defend the move.

Southampton Football Club has now released a statement after it emerged last week it was refusing to accredit any photographers from the regional or national press.

The statement suggests the club has no intention of backing down on the controversial ban, saying images taken by its own professional photographers will be available for sale to the media to ‘protect the club’s commercial revenues’.

This comes after the photographic agency the club hoped to strike a deal with, Digital South, pulled out of a deal to be the only outlet supplying pictures from matches.

The statement says: “The club has decided to make available to external media organisations photographic images taken by the club’s own professional sports photographers only.

“These images will be available to all media organisations on normal commercial terms. The purpose of this is solely to protect the club’s commercial revenues derived from the use of its wholly-owned images.

“Saints fans will of course continue to be able to see a wide range of match day photography on the club website.”

It adds there are no restrictions on media organisations reporting on games from Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium.

But in response to the statement, Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, has written to the club for the second time, raising concerns the club would select which images are released to the media, which ‘will clearly interfere with editorial choice’.

He writes: “I am sorry if that is indeed the position and that you seem to be ignoring the suggestion that your policy can only damage what has long been a mutually beneficial relationship between your club and media organisations.”

The move by the club has come under widespread criticism and Plymouth’s Herald commissioned cartoon drawings of Southampton’s match against Plymouth Argyle at the weekend to try to get round the ban.

Comments

Dave, Royston Vaesy (10/08/2010 09:43:14)
Why shouldn’t the club be able to maximise it’s revenues by selling something which is in demand? Why shoud a paper get something which obviously has a commercial value (otherwise they wouldn’t want it) for free?
This isn’t a council chamber funded by the public – it’s a private business.

BarryJesus (10/08/2010 09:54:46)
Because, Dave, the club can be very selective in what it releases – giving out images which flatter the team.
The whole point of sports reports is they are reviews – newspapers should be free to criticise. With the club controlling images, it can drastically weaken editorial control.
Readers and fans deserve uncensored access to how their team is doing, but if you’re happy with bland, controlled information from your club, then I’d argue you’re not a proper football fan.
And of course newspapers need to make money – but the club benefits as much from media coverage as the paper benefits from covering the club.
Both will lose out commercially if the paper stops covering the team.

Meldrew (10/08/2010 10:27:25)
It’s bad enough that the newspaper industry has been taken over by bean counters. Now they’re running football too.

MH Media (10/08/2010 10:31:27)
“the club can be very selective in what it releases – giving out images which flatter the team”
Yes indeed, and one wonders what the team has got to hide..

Paul (10/08/2010 10:37:03)
Dave, can you not see that the club allowing press in for free is actually positive PR for the club and is a priceless commodity?
Why should clubs cow-tow to stupid demands like this?

Oldhackandproud (10/08/2010 10:40:19)
It also goes against the league’s own rules. All papers, freelances, websites TV etc must prove their credentials and apply for and obtain a licence from league agents Football Dataco with strict guidelines on public liability insurance, usage etc..It allows free access to bona fide snappers and also covers reporters. Southampton have breached the regulations and we await the league clamping down on them with a booted foot and snatching back some of their rights money. Fat chance though!

Duffo (10/08/2010 10:53:11)
Remember the days before the Internet when clubs relied on newspapers for most of their publicity? Pages of club news and pictures got published for free. Football clubs should think about what their local papers have done for them in the past and dump this selfish attitude, especially as the newspaper industry needs a lift at the moment. Pay-back time.

BarryJesus (10/08/2010 10:55:21)
How happy are Saints sponsors going to be about not having their slogans plastered all over the press?
Saints make money from shirt and stadium sponsorship, the value of that sponsorship goes down without any media exposure of it.
It’s a very shortsighted policy from Southampton, a club in decline that should be grateful for any coverage.

Des E Gershon. (10/08/2010 11:08:00)
Editorial control comes first and foremost so reject all images offered – even if free – from this short sighted club.
Next – get the readers to submit snaps ( I mean snaps) from the game and publish some really poor images – prefferably with incorrect captions. This should make this idiotic club think twice about refusing to allow professional lensmen into their games.

Hackensacked (10/08/2010 11:11:29)
BarryJesus, Southampton don’t have a shirt sponsor this season – it’s the club’s 125th anniversary year and they have a retro shirt that reflects the original kit… and no sponsor.
The club’s owner Markus Liebherr is a multi-billionaire and doesn’t actually need the money – hence the ‘original’, no adverts, shirt.
Also, it’s not a club in decline – the decline has been halted by the new owner and his money, and the club is now heading back in the right direction – certainly as far as fans are concerned (you’re not a Pompey fan, by any chance?).
Doesn’t alter the fact that the ban isn’t a very clever idea – the relationship between football and the media is one that benefits both parties when it’s good and neither party when it breaks down.

Phil Mingo (10/08/2010 11:18:16)
I think Southampton are missing the point. What goes around comes around and when this club visit away grounds the hope is that the other clubs will impose their ban on the Southampton photographers. There seems to be two sets of rules at Southampton – 1/ No one is allowed to do anything with their images even the visiting clubs. 2: Southampton can use away clubs photos without payment for their match day programs and then talk about the need to earning revenue from photos. I expect a big fat cheque will be heading for Plymouth Argyle for those uses.
At football clubs where we are involved in the photography our policy is to welcome all those bona fide photographers (DataCo) with a welcome, open arms and a smile to those professionals photographers from newspapers, agencies and freelancers. Competition is good and helps to maintain the high standard expected from photographers, with the freedom of the press to give a true account been given in the eye of the reporters and photographers.
I know that the photo agency, Digital South that got dragged into this and after speaking to Robin Jones the owner I feel that Southampton have done him a disservice by giving the impression that his agency were involved. Robin explained that Southampton had approached him about syndication but realized the implication to his agency and the bigger picture and assured me that he had no part of it. Robin went onto explain that Southampton had told him, if you do not syndicate our photos we will do it ourselves. I would love to listen to the phone call to the Sun Newspaper and others. “Can we have your picture desk email or ftp please, as we are stopping your photographers from coming into Southampton
?” Those papers that use Southampton’s photos are supporting a draconian style of editorial use of photos. When speaking to the League Paper and David Emery, David explained that he had no option but to use Southampton’s photos as he had two pages set aside. I understood the rate varied from £80 – £120 and the League Paper only paid £50! I will stand corrected if someone could tell me otherwise. Imagine if every clubs did this and worked out a price structure so you paid a flat rate for what ever you got, say £150 to £250 for a set!
Philip Mingo
Director
Pinnacle Photo Agency

BarryJesus (10/08/2010 11:20:49)
I admit I had no idea about the shirt sponsor – it’s surprising. Even if you do have a multi-billionaire owner, to pass up such a big commercial opportunity seems foolhardy.
You can argue it’s not a club in decline (and can’t believe someone reporterd me for saying that), but I’d argue if you look at the great club it once was, it’s been a club in decline for many years. Just having a billionaire owner isn’t enough – you need to start winning games, stop losing to the likes of Plymouth and get out of League 1 before you can say you’ve stopped the decline.
And no, I’m not a Pompey fan, and I don’t think anyone could argue that that really is a club in decline.

Dave (10/08/2010 12:02:10)
Why isn’t HTFP showing the cartoons when other websites, e.g. Yahoo.co.uk, are? Have you been banned???????

Up The Revolution (10/08/2010 12:27:17)
The Daily Echo should run a campaign to get everyone in the crowd to take a camera to the next home match. Everyone takes a photo all at once as the whistle goes. To reply to the 1st comment, you don’t get 1,000’s in a council chamber to see a vote being cast.

Saints Fan (10/08/2010 12:52:41)
As a Saints fan who works in the media, I’m disgusted by the way Nicola Cortese has behaved. He clearly doesn’t understand how the club needs to interact with the media ahd why it is beneficial to keep the local rag on side. How long will it be before he bans reporters from independent media organisations? It’s great that the new guys in charge of Saints saved us from oblivion, but that doesn’t give them the divine right to act in this way.

ginger whinger (10/08/2010 14:13:10)
Why doesn’t the club go the whole hog and provide match reports to the media as well?

Richard Orange (10/08/2010 15:06:27)
The law of copyright, trespass and intellectual property is actually on the side of the landowner here. There is nothing unreasonable about controlling media access to public or private events which take place behind closed doors. Football club grounds are generally on private property (either owned outright by the club or leased from a landowner) and entry to the public is controlled by licence (eg: an entry ticket) which will specify what activities may and may not be allowed. It is common practice for tickets to an indoor concert to contain a clause forbidding photography or video/audio recording except with permission of the owner or performer – for obvious reasons. Journalists and photographers require permission to record or film events on private property, regardless of whether the general public is allowed on site either for a payment or for free. Take Trent Bridge cricket ground. It is possible to overlook the stadium from a nearby building owned by the council and there would be nothing to stop someone setting up a camera from the vantage point outside the ground. But owners of the ground are entitled to control and limit media access to the event from inside the property. There is no law or ‘civil right’ to go onto someone else’s land and do what you like (Lord Denning said: You can invite someone into your home, but you do not thereby invite them to slide down the banisters). Pictures and video of football games have a commercial value. Photographers and journalists not unreasonably object when Joe Public downloads or scans their pictures and flogs the prints online. People buy pictures from newspapers under licence – ie: they do not have permission to copy and sell them. Presumably either the club/s concerned will make a profit out of selling their own pictures (to fans or magazines or picture desks or charge for online downloads), or alternatively they will not find a market/outlet, and will be more relaxed about letting other people take pictures. What law entitles journalists and photographers to take their cameras into football club grounds? If the clubs make some money out of this venture, then presumably more of them will follow suit. If newspapers decide not to buy the ‘in-house’ pictures, then presumably the ’empty space’ can be taken up with match reports from clubs that do allow freelances and staff photographers in.

Mike (10/08/2010 15:13:43)
In answer to Ginger Whinger, I believe that Southampton already did this. Saints fans now think that they won the game 5-1 and are now top of the league

Onlooker (10/08/2010 15:17:04)
I take the point that the clubs are getting priceless publicity for free etc. But Dave poses a very pertinent question: Why should a newspaper expect its source material for free? Do Heinz pay for the beans inside their tins? I think they do.

Hackensacked (10/08/2010 16:13:17)
BarryJesus, not me who reported you – I’d rather discuss like adults….
Like SaintsFan, I am a Saints supporter who works in media – and am similarly unimpressed by Chief Executive Nicola Cortese’s decision.
Unfortunately he’s now painted himself into a corner and won’t be able to back down without loss of face.
And if you think there’s a fuss now, imagine what it’ll be like if Saints get through to a latter round of the FA or Carling cups and host a visit by, say, Man United or Chelsea.
The nationals will at that point round all their guns on the club if they are denied access for their snappers – and I can’t see anything good coming out of it for Saints, more’s the pity.
Perhaps one positive to be drawn from this is that it has reopened the debate about rights, access and so on – and while restrictions on press freedom of this nature are rarely a good thing, the issue isn’t as cut and dried as some would like to have it, as Richard Orange’s comments effectively demonstrate.
Also interesting to note that there’s precious little sympathy for the press’ predicament from fans – they just see it as more arrogance from Murdoch and his mates.
If The Times is able to charge people for venturing behind its paywall, why shouldn’t a football club make some money out of its pictures?
I don’t happen to agree, but there’s a certain logic to it…

Richard Orange (10/08/2010 16:40:00)
Of course if there is a governing body regulation requiring a private landowner or company to provide access to a ‘pool’ photographer or to any accredited photographer then that is a different matter, and would be for the governing body to pursue with the club. But that does not mean that a particular media company could go to the courts and insist on unrestricted access to private property, because presumably the regulation would be in general not specific terms- otherwise clubs would be at risk of litigation for ‘loss of earnings’ from unaccredited photographers and journalists. Ordinary ‘punters’ who tried to take pictures from anywhere other than the ‘licensed foto area’ would be in breach of their own contract with the club (ie: the ticket conditions of entry to the game) and any media company which attempted to ‘bypass’ the process by engaging ‘citizen journos’ in the crowd could be liable for damages for breach of copyright and vicarious breach of contract.

Chris, Migrant Sub (10/08/2010 17:47:57)
It’ll be interesting to see what images they release when they lose 6-0 at home to Portsmouth.

Cyril Nice-one (09/09/2010 08:01:45)
Is it worth reconsidering the vast amount of coverage that papers give to sport? Acres of newsprint given over to overpaid numbskulls every day/week. How about reconsidering priorities and giving more coverage to some of the ‘lesser’ sports and
maybe women’s /kids’ /schools’ for a change? Those kinds of sports where local people own and take part… just a thought