This has been an exceptional sporting summer: The British Lions’ pulsating victory in South Africa. Adam Peaty heading for gold in Tokyo. Novak Djokovic claiming a record-equalling 20th Grand Slam at Wimbledon. Collin Morikawa winning the Open golf championship on his debut. I would like to add the start of the football season in Scotland. Except there is a sour taste to it.
Last season brought one of the most remarkable resurrections in the history of the Scottish game. Rangers, a club mired for years in financial scandal, insolvency, and a humiliating demotion to the third division, completed their return to the heights of the premiership by winning the title — their first in ten years. Under a brilliant manager, Steven Gerrard, they have turned their fortunes around.
That comeback was reported, daily and in detail, on the back pages of every Scottish newspaper. Not any more. Rangers are proposing that coverage should be paid for. Not a pound or so, but big money. Newspapers will be asked for £25,000 for the privilege of reporting team news. That would allow one reporter and one photographer to attend matches and pre-match press conferences, and buy five exclusive interviews and a sit-down briefing with the manager. For £10,000 they would have access to the club, and one “exclusive” story. The media would be expected to pay for news — a concept that runs counter to the whole concept of freedom of the press. The response from newspapers can best be described as “cool”. One hopes the proposal will be thrown out with much the same disdain as the “super league” put forward by European clubs who ignored the interests of their fans in the interest of profit.
It is an arrogant policy. It assumes that such is the power of a club that has forced itself to the head of the premiership, newspapers will be prepared to join an exclusive club within which information will be shared. That information, of course, will be controlled by Rangers. One has to assume that the privileged briefings and interviews will be entirely at the behest of the club’s executives. Independent scrutiny will go out of the window.
This is not only about making money, it is about the power to manage news and ensure that it is positive. For a club that has only just emerged from the mire, this is hubris of a high degree.
Rangers may be enjoying a one-year high, but who is to say it will be maintained? A manager departs, say, the wins drop away, suspicions grow that the bosses are withholding investment in good players. Who is there to probe for the truth, when every reporter is inside the bubble?
The club seems unaware of all this. It argues that as television pays high fees for coverage, so should newspapers. But there is a crucial difference. Coverage of live games on TV is a boost to ratings, which have a commercial value. Newspapers are giving readers an insight into where the club stands. When, for instance, yesterday’s friendly against Real Madrid is reported, there will be no question-and-answer with the manager, no discussion about tactics or team choices. Any comments will have to be gleaned from Rangers TV, controlled by the club itself.
What is depressing is to note the complete lack of comment from the Scottish Professional Football League — the body that governs the national men’s association football league. Its own rules say there must be media access, but it has, so far as I can see, said nothing about all this. If Rangers have their way and some news organisations accept their terms, this will be the thin end of an almighty wedge, with Celtic possibly willing to join in, and then the other powerful clubs signing on.
The club argues that in the era of social media, fans and their organisations have a far wider reach than newspapers. Better by far to restrict access to supporters — that way favourable coverage can be guaranteed. The fans agree. They have a low opinion of the press, which reports bad news as well as the good. That can change, however, and if an independent voice is excluded, who will represent the interests of fans when they demand answers to what has gone wrong?
A good example is the Europa League incident in which the Czech player Ondrej Kudela was accused of racially abusing the Rangers player Glen Kamara. A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting, it would have been, under Rangers’ new terms, confined to a club-controlled statement, with no investigation of the circumstances, or the rebuttal from Kudela. One-sided news is no news at all.
Football is entertainment as well as spectacle. No self-respecting theatre, concert hall or pop venue would consider charging critics for access. Pretty soon the notices would dry up and the audiences dwindle. In England, where clubs would quite fancy charging newspapers, the argument has got nowhere. Nor should it in Scotland.
Rangers would do well to remember an ancient virtue called humility. It is less than ten years since the club was downgraded to the third division, where it lost 1–0 to Stirling Albion, then the bottom club in the country. Success is never guaranteed; a downward spiral can occur in the blink of an eye. Best perhaps to remember that old adage about pride coming before a fall.
