Has the internet really changed, Who gets to tell sports stories?
The internet as a whole has made sports media easier to create more than ever before, Someone can pick up a phone and begin recording a podcast from their bedroom, or a quick take on the most recent game. Youtube channels can be launched without a broadcaster, athletes can post directly to their fans through social media applications as their medium. And independent writers can publish without writing on newspapers. On the surface this suggests that sports story telling has become more accessible to the outside audience. I myself have released multiple different sports stories as an individual not backed by anyone. However, in this peice of writing I want to argue how the internet has only partly changed who gets to tell sports stories. It has opened the door for more voices especially fans and athletes alike. But the biggest audiences are still largely controlled by major organisations. Such as the premier league’s £6.7 billion UK broadcast rights deal, it has adapted to the digital age. I will be looking at podcasts, videos and written journalism to argue that sports media is now easier to produce but difficult to distribute at scale.
Podcasting is one of the most clearest examples of the platform revolution. In the past, someone who wanted to make sports audio would usually need to access to radio, a broadcaster or a production company. But these times a fan can now record a podcast at home and directly upload it to Spotify, through Spotify for creators, or Apple Podcasts. Or even through a digital distributer like Acast for as little as £20 a month to every streaming platform. Ofcom’s podcast research shows that podcast listening is now a normal part of UK media habits, this means that there is a real audience for this kind of content. Independent podcasts such as Non League Heroes show how the internet allows smaller football commentates to be represented. It covers non league clubs, volunteers, players and managers who would rarely be covered by a big broadcaster like Sky sports or BBC sports. However this does not mean the podcast industry is completely equal. The biggest sports podcasts are still usually connected to major organisations. Such as the Up to Speed podcast. Being backed by global and providing content that is all F1. With professional resources too. Therefore, podcasting has changed who can make sports stories, but not necessarily who can reach the biggest audience.
Video platforms such as YouTube and TikTok have also changed sports story telling. COPA90 is a useful case study because it began as a YouTube channel focused on fan culture and stories outside mainstream coverage. Unlike traditional broadcasters, it was not only interested in match results, transfers or elite clubs. It showed that online video could give space to different voices and different football communities. However, COPA90 also shows the limits of independence. Once it became successful, major media companies invested in it, including Liberty Global and Time Warner/Turner. This suggests that big organisations do not always need to stop independent voices. Instead, they can back them once they become valuable enough to retain their own audience. Athlete content on TikTok and YouTube also shows both sides of the argument. Platers can now speak directly to fans and show their own lives, but much of this content is still shaped by agents, sponsors and personal brands. Therefore online video has created new opportunities, but it has not removed the influence of big media and commercial power.
Written sports journalism has also been changed by the internet, but the results are mixed. On one hand, sports wiring is no longer limited to newspapers. Journalists, athletes and fans can publish blogs and newsletters. The Athletic is an important example of digital sports journalism because it uses a subscription model rather than relying mainly on advertising. This can allow for more detailed reporting analysis and long form features. However this creates a problem. If the best journalism is behind a paywall, then not every reader has equal access to it. Free tabloid such as The Sun, The Mirror and the Daily Mail are much easier to access, but they often rely on fast headlines, transfer rumours and click driven stories. This could suggest that the internet has not simply made journalism better for everyone. Instead, it has created more choice, but also a two tier system where quality is often linked to the ability to pay. There have been also cases where athletes communicate and write directly to fans to control and maintain their own personal image and maintain a connection with their fans. That is something that can be controlled by general media companies however.
Social media provides some of the strongest evidence that the internet has changed sports story telling. Marcus Rashford’s free school meals campaign in 2020 showed that an athlete could speak directly to the public and influence national politics without waiting for a newspaper or broadcaster to tell the story first and then he could jump onto the same boat with them. His open letter and social media posts helped turn a sports figure into a political voice. Or another example Naomi Osaka’s withdrawal from the French Open in 2021 represents this change too. Instead of allowing journalists and press conferences control and manipulate her narrative. She maintained initiave and took control she used her own social media statement to explain her mental health and explained effectively why her decision to withdraw was made. These examples show real change because athletes can now control their own stories. However, this power is not equal across all athletes on all sports. Rashford and Osaka already have massive followings and their fame is prevalent across the world. An athlete that is less famous could post something just as or in some cases even more important but because their reach is not at large they 1§will be treated as just another voice lost in the crowd by the general public. Completely ignored. In this case, social media has replaced some old gate keepers with new ones being: the amount of followers, the way the algorithm works with you and how visible you are on the specific platform. And that gos back to what was said previously. Backing from a major broadcaster can fix that for a smaller athlete to have that wider reach that they may need. Or something controversial enough to catch their eye could help with that. But as said previously in this paragraph this does not guarantee an athlete with not as much reach will maintain control.
In the end, the internet has had an affect on who can tell sports stories, but it has not completely changed who controls the sports media. Podcasts on streaming platforms, YouTube, online journalism and social media have made it easier for the fans and independent creators o publish their own views or their own work. Like examples said previously like the Non league heroes podcast, COPA90, Marcus Rashford and Naomi Osaka. They all show that stories can now come from outside traditional broadcasters and newspapers. However, the evidence can also suggest that major general originisations still hold major power. If an independent creator gets too large which could potentially pull their audience away they buy then outright and bring them right back to them. Like Sky Sports, talkSPORT, The athletic. They all have serious money to spend, they have reputations to maintain and still decide the sports media that is widely visible online. This links back to my own work stated about previously. I made my own audio documentary talking about untold stories in sports, the stories the same broadcasters did not pick up on because it was too “basic” or too “boring.” However, even with the reach it had, it did not have the same reach it could have got from a major broadcaster. So what does this all mean? The internet has democratised making media more than it has democratised reaching people. And that is fact.
Below is an audio documentary of mine about this topic platformed on spotify:
Imad Daili - Sports Media 