How do they plan to stop a reddit from posting articles from there for free?
The Athletic “gutting” British newspapers
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
The athletic has been big here in the states for about 2 years.
I for one don’t understand paying for news / stories when they’ll all come out in time but I’m sure all these people are getting salary bumps to jump ship so good for them.
I for one don’t understand paying for news / stories when they’ll all come out in time but I’m sure all these people are getting salary bumps to jump ship so good for them.
I'd pay for genuinely insightful analysis but I've genuinely never found any reporter in a newspaper to have a decent grasp on the tactical aspect of the game. There's a huge niche market there for someone to write excellent articles about how teams actually play and the small changes they make for each game.
I agree completely. That's what certain writers on The Athletic do for the NBA and NFL (we're talking detailed analysis, both video and stats-driven). I am hoping that these new hires demonstrate a pivot toward that model with their footy coverage.
Brexit taking it's toll AGAIN.
Pretty much. There's always going to be one person on Reddit or any other internet forum who will just post the whole article for anyone to read.
There're already a few second private accounts from big instagramers out there who cost about 25 bucks every month. Coupled with around 1000 followers you can do the math. There're always people around who pay for these kind of insights, don't see it happening for footie news.
Obviously i don't know the exact numbers but i'd guess that not many people get the fee based articles from the telegraph or l'équipe.
Same way they stop streaming subs.... dmca takedowns
Yes, but I meant in terms of press in general. They can still get paid while it’s free to the general public but they’ve now chosen to be part of an exclusive “club” and I hate how instead of making things more available for people without much money we want to make things less available for them.
Why should sports journalists of all people forego better financial/job opportunities for the "greater good" of sports journalism availability?
Wait, isn't that just newspapers?
I’d suggest there’s a good reason he hasn’t stopped doing that, or been forced to.
Already subscribe to my obsession with North American sports.
Absolutely delighted with this news.
Absolutely delighted with this news.
Because it's morally right but you're welcome to be trapped in your bubble of elitism.
Plenty of papers have free online articles.
A fantasist?
I look forward to the investigation to find out who Wumminator is when this launches
I looked at that tweets and still don't understand what the thread is about. Can anyone explain it to me?
Presumably they apply the same business model that sees Netflix make a tonne of money, despite all their content being shared on torrents (or by people sharing login details) for free. There’s enough customers out there who don’t want to steal their media of choice.
Conveniently, there’s a link to an article in the first tweet in the OP which explains everything.
I see, I thought it was just a picture when I looked at it on my phone.
I don't really see that being the case. Firstly, I don't know many people who want to watch a youtube video paraphrasing articles. It's hard to replace the written word. I also think that most people over a certain age are going to much rather read quality content than watch youtube. Secondly, I just can't jive with the mentality of people that will go to considerable lengths, just to get around a $5 a month fee.
One of my pet peeves about football journalism is how spread out the decent coverage is, drowned in a sea of nonsense. If The Athletic aggregate most of the best football writers, I would absolutely subscribe to them. I had their app on a trial basis, and the content was superb. Only reason I didn't pay for it was because, at the time, they didn't have much football content.
The Athletic is good
I am looking forward to it. I will subscribe.
First time hearing of them.
So they want people to pay for their lies now?
If people are still skeptical about the interest in the PL in the US, well I don't know what to tell you. These English journalists (a couple of Tier 1s in the list) are getting more money to write to a predominantly US audience. Pretty ridiculous in all honesty and am concerned that the extremely small amount of reliable football reporting currently out there will increasingly require paid subscriptions moving forward to read (don't currently subscribe to The Athletic myself).
Thought this was about Atletico Madrid and English newspapers and was pretty darn confused.
Never heard of this "The Athletic". Shit name.
Never heard of this "The Athletic". Shit name.
Is this hugely different a concept to, say, Second Captains who require you to pay for their shows? Though they do one (or two) free ones a week (perhaps the Atlantic will run some free to read articles to entice people).
I have to say, I'm struggling to see the great moral issue with them doing this. I think in my heart I would rather a journalist be paid by their readers/viewers than by an advertiser with a hidden agenda (granted that could be the case for the company, sure, but then I'm misunderstanding the business model). And clickbait journalism is a real issue.
I understand @SilentWitness ' point that it's making it harder for the "have nots" to read this stuff with the price involved, but that is already an issue for things like books, newspapers some podcasts (Second Captains, TSFP are two examples I can think of)...to fix that you need to fix much broader problems in society of people living paycheck to paycheck (but there's already a UBI thread so I don't want to derail).
Having said all that, my favourite podcasts are the stuff the Football Ramble guys put out and that's all free (though I think there's an ACast+ option?)
All that said, I've seen very few names that make me want to pay to read them. But I guess that is a more a question of success likelihood than am I opposed to this.
I have to say, I'm struggling to see the great moral issue with them doing this. I think in my heart I would rather a journalist be paid by their readers/viewers than by an advertiser with a hidden agenda (granted that could be the case for the company, sure, but then I'm misunderstanding the business model). And clickbait journalism is a real issue.
I understand @SilentWitness ' point that it's making it harder for the "have nots" to read this stuff with the price involved, but that is already an issue for things like books, newspapers some podcasts (Second Captains, TSFP are two examples I can think of)...to fix that you need to fix much broader problems in society of people living paycheck to paycheck (but there's already a UBI thread so I don't want to derail).
Having said all that, my favourite podcasts are the stuff the Football Ramble guys put out and that's all free (though I think there's an ACast+ option?)
All that said, I've seen very few names that make me want to pay to read them. But I guess that is a more a question of success likelihood than am I opposed to this.
Well, theres half a million people who subscribe to “The United Stand” for a start.
Plus the other couple of hundred thousand who watch other United related Youtube videos,
Then theres the members of this website who come her for transfer updates when they could just read a news article.
Watching s youtube video isnt a “considerable effort” you open the app and the video is there.
It could very well work. They just need to come out with a couple of top quality pieces, make it free / public, and then people will sign up from there.
People will always pay for quality, I subscribe to the financial times, it's costly but its value is huge to me for the quality and depth it provides.
Take twitch for example - the idea of people paying £5 a month to watch people they can watch for free sounds ludicrous - but the top channels all have 40k+ subscribers.
Personally I'm not into football deep enough to subscribe for long-form type reads, and I'm not sure how many in the UK are either, but if they target their pieces well they could very well succeed.
People will always pay for quality, I subscribe to the financial times, it's costly but its value is huge to me for the quality and depth it provides.
Take twitch for example - the idea of people paying £5 a month to watch people they can watch for free sounds ludicrous - but the top channels all have 40k+ subscribers.
Personally I'm not into football deep enough to subscribe for long-form type reads, and I'm not sure how many in the UK are either, but if they target their pieces well they could very well succeed.
Read by unhealthy, fat bastards at their PCs worldwide.
Yeah, I find Ronay’s style irritating. Marina Hyde isn’t a football journalist but when she does cover football stories she’s usually very funny. Rory Smith is excellent but behind a paywall already.
The names that I recognise from the list generally write like shit. Perhaps they've been tailoring their efforts to your average numbskull sports fan all these years and that under a new banner they'll be able to produce writing with some insight and imagination. Who knows, it remains to be seen. Because sports journalism can be worth paying for - I've paid for several books containing genuine quality writing over the years.
For exmple if they could write a rant about our entitled and spoilt fanbase I would definitely start throwing money at it.
For exmple if they could write a rant about our entitled and spoilt fanbase I would definitely start throwing money at it.
Football analysis is overrated. I reckon at least 50% of it is untrue, 20/20 in hindsight or hardly groundbreaking.
@Wumminator you have at least 1 subscriber.
What would the impact be for The Guardian, Daily Mail, etc? Losing their "best"?
Would they also lose readers?
Would they also lose readers?
Same. Either that or British newspapers were going to stop (gut) their use of describing players as being athletic or some reason or other.
Edit: Anyway, I'll not be subscribing. I don't buy newspapers, follow journalists on twitter etc. I don't even visit newspaper websites out of curiosity to read news or opinion, just go to them if someone else posts what looks like an interesting link here or elsewhere.
Last edited:
How many people bother to read anymore?
I like Daniel Taylor too.
Is a forum, the place to ask that question?
tldr