Even after the summer glut of soccer which was the World Cup in Brazil, interest has been ratcheted up several notches with the start of the new round of matches in the Football and Premier leagues.
Print, broadcast and social media have been dominated by comment and content, both official and unofficial, about fixtures, form and club finances.
The fervour is welcomed by the Premier League in particular. It knows that fans drive subscriptions and, therefore, the amounts which television, radio and newspapers will pay for a seat on football’s gravy train.
As with any other asset, the League wants to maximise its value and control who has access to it.
That has led it to make an eve-of-season change in tactics, urging supporters to – if you will – play fair and by the rules when it comes to match footage.
It has been irked by the rise in action being posted on social media sites without proper permission. In a statement, it appealed to supporters to “understand the investment model that produces the football they love”.
The initiative has been greeted as something of a veiled threat by those appropriating ‘live’ or broadcast action to desist or face a lawsuit. However, I interpret it slightly differently.
As I made clear in an interview this morning with BBC TV’s ‘Breakfast’, this isn’t the first time that the Premier League has tried to enforce its legal rights. In the past, it has tackled both pubs and live-streaming websites.
The difference on this occasion is that, in social media, the League faces an opponent in social media as nimble as any tricky winger turning out for one of its 20 member clubs.
It knows that it would be be simply impossible to pursue every individual posting a clip of match action on social media.
In addition, it appreciates that trying to get social media platforms to filter content posted by users would probably be met with a shrug of their digital shoulders, given the technological and resourcing implications involved, even though that position might change when the type of systems capable of doing the job automatically become more widely available.
That’s why I think the Premier League is appealing to supporters in an effort to get them to regard using footage recorded in the home or a stadium as unacceptable. There are parallels in the way that the major film studios appear to have achieved a shift in attitudes towards the pirating of blockbusters by audiences in their local multiplex.
What is perhaps most interesting is how this situation represents another example of how existing law is applied to fast-evolving technology and circumstances which, in some situations, could not possibly have been envisaged when it was drafted.
As many players might remark over the coming months, at the end of the day it remains to be seen whether supporters do give the practice of ‘ripping’ material the red card or if the Premier League adopts an even more novel approach in an effort to secure its goal.
