OPINION
Sporting codes like rugby and cricket run the risk of losing younger fans if they continue with their strict copyright policy that prevents the sharing or third-party analysis of their content – as was widely criticised during this year’s Rugby World Cup.
It is narrow-minded in the extreme to place the immediate perceived financial loss as a higher priority than allowing fans to engage with content on social media. Younger fans turn into older fans that eventually fund sporting organisations by purchasing streaming subscriptions, match tickets and merchandise.
Sports fans would be hard-pressed these days to scroll their social media feeds and not come across a clip from one of the major American sporting codes. There is a seemingly endless stream of video content that emerges daily from the likes of the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL.
It might come from official channels, or more often, clips are posted online by social media users for the consumption of their followers and social media at large.
The clips not only provide viewing opportunities for sports that are often not available on television in most countries but create discussion and a chance for moments to go viral, amassing millions of views and launching players into stardom.
One only needs to pay slight attention to the NBA to notice the bombardment of content featuring their latest star, French teenager Victor Wembanyama. The 2.23-metre (7′4″) forward is a human highlight machine, and the NBA plaster him across every inch of newsfeed real estate they can with the unique things he is able to do on a basketball court.
The NBA has clearly understood the opportunity that social media presents. One of the most well-known NBA content creators, Rob Perez, posts clips taken directly from the NBA’s streaming service League Pass that gain huge engagement on his channels and remain available for viewers to consume.
Another extremely popular social media creator is House of Highlights, with 50 million followers on social media that is more than World Rugby and the ICC combined.
By contrast, World Rugby and international cricket boards, in an attempt to preserve the lucrative broadcast rights deals signed for major tournaments, swiftly flag content for copyright infringement on social media platforms like X or YouTube.
SquidgeRugby, a YouTube channel with over 230,000 subscribers, had an in-depth review of the Rugby World Cup final taken down just 12 hours after posting. The video had amassed more than 100,000 views in that time and World Rugby drew outrage from fans over the abrupt removal.
SquidgeRugby’s unique selling point is the analysis they provide to viewers that goes far beyond what World Rugby or television broadcasters provide. Former players arguing over refereeing decisions leads to punters putting the TV on mute at half time or turning it off the moment the final whistle is blown. Squidge’s World Cup final video reportedly took them 60 hours to make.
Not only does the criticism for the removal of content like Squidge’s come from fans who enjoy the content, but also from those who view the strict copyright approach as organisations shooting themselves in the foot in regard to garnering a younger audience.
Squidge’s Will Owen told inews.co.uk: “The way that younger audiences are going to be engaged is if there are viral moments, and the only way we’ll get viral moments is if we make them accessible.
“Gem Hallett, who is a former Wales rugby international, is extremely tuned into the needs of Gen Z, especially in sport, and posted this week about how we need to be encouraging people on TikTok, on YouTube, on Instagram – on whatever young people are into. We need to be making that as accessible as possible to new fans, otherwise, they’re going to be disengaged.”
Squidge wasn’t the only case of World Rugby coming down hard on social media content, frequently throughout the World Cup content was removed from social media with comments sections full of disgruntled fans all echoing the same sentiment: this is not good for exposure of the game.
The cricket equivalent is the case of the YouTube channel Robelinda2 (originally Robelinda but that channel was deleted over a copyright infringement) which held the title of the largest cricket YouTube channel. The channel was taken down after a flurry of seemingly coordinated copyright complaints from mysterious origins.
Robelinda2 aka Rob Moody didn’t just post cricket highlights but created unique montages going back as far as the 1980s, with footage that has rarely been seen since it was originally broadcast.
What set Robelinda2 apart was the posting of videos that broadcasters and cricket boards deemed too trivial to upload themselves, showcasing the bizarre or humorous side of cricket that makes it a sport that fascinates its fans. It is important to note that Moody never monetised the channel, responded to any copyright complaints or altered content to accommodate where he could.
Moody told cricket podcast The Final Word: “When cricket boards have come after the channel, it’s usually been pretty good. They usually identify what is the problem, and what I want to do about it,” he says. “You can almost find whatever you want from the 80s and 90s, but they tend to come down harshly on anything from the 2000s onwards... I uploaded a two-second video of an Ian Bell cover drive from the SCG in January 2011, and it was blocked before it had finished uploading.”
YouTube has a copyright process that is largely automated, companies don’t have to prove they own the content – the uploader does. In the case of Robelinda2, the copyright complaint came from Marhaba Sports India - a company which via a quick internet search is listed as having been created in November 2023 and is a Bangladeshi company based out of London.
A glance at their X profile shows a grand total of six followers and three posts – the posts are all related to the copyright strike they have pursued with Robelinda2.
One X user commented: “Essentially you took down a channel which was loved by the entire cricket world because you have some perception of loss of money. By doing so you’ve completely stuffed your brand. Smart business.”
While in the case of Robelinda2, it is not a governing body that has shot itself in the foot with an overzealous approach to copyright, the sentiment is the same.
Removal of a perceived loss of financial return for content that otherwise would not have been posted, shared or engaged with by the copyright holder does more reputational harm to the brand than allowing creators to use the content in a better way than they ever could - or would want to.
American sports understand the value of having their content shared across social media. Gen Z live their lives on social media, whether the older generations believe that to be positive or negative, that is the reality. Younger fans often do not have the financial ability to pay for what are increasingly more expensive streaming platforms, so often their only means of consumption comes via social media.
It is these younger generations that the future of sports consumption lies. Eventually, they will have the money to pay for a streaming service, to buy tickets to a game or their favourite player’s jersey.
Sports like rugby and cricket may find rethinking their copyright procedures would be of greater long-term benefit to their sport, or risk driving younger viewers to other codes before they have a chance to become fully-fledged and consuming fans.
Will Toogood is an Online Sports Editor for the NZ Herald. He has previously worked for Newstalk ZB’s digital team and at Waiheke’s Gulf News, covering sports and events.