Topic: The Athletic

[ep1987]

Just subbed for the £1 a month. As others have said probably not enough LFC content to make that worthwhile but if they cover something else you're interested in (MLB in my case) then it is probably worth trying.
To be fair i've found over 60 LFC related long form pieces that i've bookmarked for later reading.

Here's the link to the 30 years of hurt article for anyone who has just joined (had to google it because there doesn't seem to be a way to access the full back catalogue without following individual authors): https://theathletic.com/1866742/2020/06/24/liverpool-premier-league-30-years/

Edit: Just been browsing an here's what i've found.

Outside of James Pearce and Simon Hughes here are the other authors to follow, hit 'show more', then 'show all' and ctrl+f all their stories for 'Liverpool':

Michael Cox, Raphael Honigstein, Oliver Kay, Daniel Taylor (+ recent piece on Suarez), Tom Worville (+ good article on left footed CB).

More stories:

Finance article by Matt Slater: https://theathletic.com/1899560/2020/07/03/liverpool-title-money-deloitte-league-manchester-united-hogan-billy/

Istanbul by Rafa Benitez: https://theathletic.co.uk/1833474/2020/05/25/rafa-benitez-liverpool-istanbul-milan/

Gerrard to Chesea by Dominic Fifield: https://theathletic.co.uk/1794799/2020/05/11/steven-gerrard-chelsea-liverpool-transfer-2005/

Andy Lonergan by Dominic Fifield (recommended by dudleyred): https://theathletic.co.uk/1909505/2020/07/08/andy-lonergan-liverpool-goalkeeper-alisson-klopp/

Stig Inge by Dominic Fifield: https://theathletic.co.uk/1432381/2019/12/11/footballers-at-50-stig-inge-bjornebye-dealing-with-depression-respecting-the-dockers-with-fowler-threats-from-sheep-farmers/

Gerrard the Manager by Jordan Campbell: https://theathletic.com/1425587/2020/07/27/steven-gerrard-manager-rangers-ibrox-two-years/

Analytics by Adam Crafton: https://theathletic.co.uk/1742037/2020/04/15/the-data-explosion-depay-arsenal-torreira-kante-agents/

Let me know if i've missed anything.

[dudleyred]

Just subbed for the £1 a month. As others have said probably not enough LFC content to make that worthwhile but if they cover something else you're interested in (MLB in my case) then it is probably worth trying.

Here's the link to the 30 years of hurt article for anyone who has just joined (had to google it because there doesn't seem to be a way to access the full back catalogue without following individual authors): https://theathletic.com/1866742/2020/06/24/liverpool-premier-league-30-years/

Does anyone have any more recommendations for older pieces that people should check out?

The article with Andy lonergan was superb

[ScouserAtHeart]

Does anyone know if The Athletic is turning a profit?

They've hoovered up loads of well established sports journalists that I'd expect aren't getting paid in buttons!  I've followed James Pearce on Twitter for years and rarely clicked through when he worked at the Echo (as the bloat on their site would incapacitate whatever device I was using) and haven't ever really been tempted to do so now he's at The Athletic either.  Generally the headline is enough for my 10 second attention span.

Hopefully for The Athletic lots of people aren't as tightfisted as me.

Think they have quite a few subscribers in the US/Canada as well.

I only have a passing interest in basketball for example so I check out that section once in a while, but their coverage of American sports is a lot more in depth than their football coverage even.

[royhendo]

What are we to make of The Athletic at this point, folks?

I think the Liverpool writers are excellent - Simon Hughes in particular is wonderful and will no doubt continue to be wonderful for the remainder of his career.

I'm just curious - subscription as a model is gonna be the norm more and more, so it's not about that - more the nature of the content. Think they're delivering on brief?

[Oscarmac]

I'll pay a quid a month at most. Only ever read Liverpool stuff, have to say I also find Hughes stuff excellent. Big space for site like them who are not just "breaking news" click bait.

[Chris~]

I took the year subscription for £12 to read the stuff around us winning the league and that was decent. In general though I don't think it's anything special. Lots of pieces which are basically club PR (not just for us but seems to be everyone), some basic stats/tactics based articles which I think you can find elsewhere now if you want to search for them from your club as it's quite popular now. There biggest drive of views/clicks seems to be just transfer news/rumours/what ifs which means they don't really stand out from anyone else.

I'd not spend much more than £1 a month as I don't think they offer enough different or interesting articles from free online sources

I've read some of their non-football stuff with the NBA and NFL and that's seemed decent but I don't really have a reference point to other outlets for that

[Fromola]

The piece yesterday reporting on the trouble was outstanding. The kind of extensive warts-and-all journalism you just don't get on other platforms like the BBC.

I like The Athletic. It's the only football site I really use now for articles and the like. Saves me bothering with the Manchester Guardian and Salford BBC

It's not amazing but I find there's always at least one good article a day on average. The quality of the writers is high and crucially there's no agenda.

[TepidT2O]

Still no F1 cricket, rugby etc etc though .

I can read about any American sport though… it’s too limited for me

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

What are we to make of The Athletic at this point, folks?

I think the Liverpool writers are excellent - Simon Hughes in particular is wonderful and will no doubt continue to be wonderful for the remainder of his career.

I'm just curious - subscription as a model is gonna be the norm more and more, so it's not about that - more the nature of the content. Think they're delivering on brief?

I took the 6 month trial at £1 but haven't renewed.
Agree re Si Hughes, he does some wonderfully niche, well researched articles, not so sure about James Pearce though.

I'd love to know how they measure their writers because I just got the impression that it was starting to veer towards articles aimed at creating debate, which was then poorly moderated.

After the season we had, I hoped it would be a refuge from the normal clickbait and banter, but I got sick of articles where the comments section was infested with ignorant trolling comments.

Journalism is at an inflection point though and as consumers we need to place more value on well researched balanced journalism, and be prepared to pay for it because the alternative is there for all to see - just look at the once great Echo's coverage of Liverpool now.

It's worth more than £1 per month, but I'm not sure I read enough for £7, especially if good articles are spoiled by childish trolling in the comments. I'm interested in other reds thoughts, and other sensible fans for that matter, but can't be arsed with wading through the crap.

£5 pm and better moderation would probably get me back.

[Samie]

They are a great for somethings and churn out quality pieces a lot but lately they're getting into the more banterish side of things especially with football.

[Crosby Nick]

I have never read it. Don’t really feel like paying to read it when in reality I’d only be there for the Liverpool stuff and if there’s any breaking news I’ll know about it on here. Same with papers that now charge, I’m not that keen to read their views.

Comments sections are always poisonous these days. I’ve decided I can’t be bothered reading views of supporters of other clubs on a Liverpool story, it’s just going to annoy me.

I get all Liverpool news from here and I pay for the Anfield Wrap.

Is that Athletic model sustainable? So they make most of their money through advertising?

[redgriffin73]

I have never read it. Don’t really feel like paying to read it when in reality I’d only be there for the Liverpool stuff and if there’s any breaking news I’ll know about it on here. Same with papers that now charge, I’m not that keen to read their views.

Comments sections are always poisonous these days. I’ve decided I can’t be bothered reading views of supporters of other clubs on a Liverpool story, it’s just going to annoy me.

I get all Liverpool news from here and I pay for the Anfield Wrap.

I'm pretty much the same, I don't think it would be worth me subscribing as I don't have the time or inclination to read that much. I follow the Guardian and BBC on social media, although have to avoid the temptation to read the comments as it just winds me up too much!

[Barefoot Doctor]

What are we to make of The Athletic at this point, folks?

I think the Liverpool writers are excellent - Simon Hughes in particular is wonderful and will no doubt continue to be wonderful for the remainder of his career.

I'm just curious - subscription as a model is gonna be the norm more and more, so it's not about that - more the nature of the content. Think they're delivering on brief?

Bit of a mixed bag. It's great to read articles that aren't littered with adverts. The likes of the Echo/Mirror etc are unreadable because the pages are so jam packed with adverts that it can take an age to scroll through. And the style of writing has changed dramatically in recent years, where the lead part of the story is at the bottom of the article because they want you to keep scrolling. It's incredibly anti-user, and will do them far more harm than good in the long run.

So The Athletic is refreshing from that perspective. I've enjoyed the addition of the headlines/news stories, which are clear and concise. Some of the long reads are very good too, but as someone who has done some sub-editing in his time I think the writers need to be told that less is more sometimes. Not every article is better for being long - there's a real skill in writing things to an appropriate length and it feels to me that the writers aren't self-editing anywhere near as much as they should.

To me, the best thing is how clearly well-connected the journos are to the clubs they cover. It increasingly feels that their reporters are the ones breaking big football stories, particularly David Ornstein. But then you don't need to pay a subscription to see that news, you can just follow the reporters on Twitter...

I'm happy to pay the reduced fee (£10 a year or whatever it was) but don't think I'd go for it at full price.

[ScouserAtHeart]

Gonna go against the grain here and say I  prefer the full price. Last season for example the articles and interactions with the authors in the comments section was fully worth it.

They started giving away 12 pounds a year subscriptions and the trolls flooded in. It's as bad as any other online paper now. Won't renew my subscription because it's so cheap, ironically.

[rafathegaffa83]

I took the 6 month trial at £1 but haven't renewed.
Agree re Si Hughes, he does some wonderfully niche, well researched articles, not so sure about James Pearce though.

I'd love to know how they measure their writers because I just got the impression that it was starting to veer towards articles aimed at creating debate, which was then poorly moderated.

After the season we had, I hoped it would be a refuge from the normal clickbait and banter, but I got sick of articles where the comments section was infested with ignorant trolling comments.

Journalism is at an inflection point though and as consumers we need to place more value on well researched balanced journalism, and be prepared to pay for it because the alternative is there for all to see - just look at the once great Echo's coverage of Liverpool now.

It's worth more than £1 per month, but I'm not sure I read enough for £7, especially if good articles are spoiled by childish trolling in the comments. I'm interested in other reds thoughts, and other sensible fans for that matter, but can't be arsed with wading through the crap.

At first they were filling in an area that The Guardian specialised in back when Kevin McCarra was the Chief Football Writer.  There are plenty of good writers there (Hughes, Horncastle, Honigstein etc). However in recent months, the comments sections have featured less intelligent discussion. Tribalism and trolls have taken over. There app could do with some work. There are interesting pieces about other clubs that get drowned out by clickbait articles that typically involve the likes of Man Utd or general news stories that need their own section.

I'm not sure how their model works going forward though. The NY Times were interested in purchasing them, but that collapsed last month. Talks re: a merger with Axios also collapsed. Given the fact The Athletic has built itself by hoovering up local and regional journalists (particularly in the U.S.),  most industry analysts believe that cutting back on those areas will damage its subscription rates.

[rafathegaffa83]

They started giving away 12 pounds a year subscriptions and the trolls flooded in. It's as bad as any other online paper now. Won't renew my subscription because it's so cheap, ironically.

Good point

[MD1990]

How bad has the Liverpool coverage been since the season ended though?
No podcasts,very little interesting articles, No insight in to pre season or transfers.

Very very poor last few months.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Gonna go against the grain here and say I  prefer the full price. Last season for example the articles and interactions with the authors in the comments section was fully worth it.

They started giving away 12 pounds a year subscriptions and the trolls flooded in. It's as bad as any other online paper now. Won't renew my subscription because it's so cheap, ironically.

I agree with you. Even though I was one of the influx. It's about coming up with a fair price that punters will pay (£7 was too much for what I read), but enough to keep out the trolls.

[stewil007]

Gonna go against the grain here and say I  prefer the full price. Last season for example the articles and interactions with the authors in the comments section was fully worth it.

They started giving away 12 pounds a year subscriptions and the trolls flooded in. It's as bad as any other online paper now. Won't renew my subscription because it's so cheap, ironically.

I guess that's the thing do you want 12 people paying a quid a month and hope to retain half at full price later on OR 1 person paying £12 a month, who may or may not stay?

[Cracking Left Foot]

How bad has the Liverpool coverage been since the season ended though?
No podcasts,very little interesting articles, No insight in to pre season or transfers.

Very very poor last few months.

To be fair, there's not been much to report on. The Konate deal was wrapped up before the Euros started, we've not bought anyone or even been seriously linked with anyone (until the Saul chat started recently). It's the same for most big clubs when an international tournament is on.  It's not like they're The Anfield Wrap and can fill in time with shows like The Gutter and AFQ.

I really like The Athletic. I was very cynical about whether a paid-for content model would work but they've shown it can. The standard of journalism is excellent.

[CraigDS]

I was very cynical about whether a paid-for content model would work but they've shown it can.

Not financially it doesn't - they're in the shit and been looking for a sale for ages.

[Vote For Pedro]

As an avid follower of the NFL I've found them well worth a quid a month, especially in the lead up to the draft recently. During the footy season they've proved well worth it, from fantasy football discussions to in depth Liverpool content etc. If you go to cancel after the offer has finished, they'll generally extend it as well.

[Drinks Sangria]

As an avid follower of the NFL I've found them well worth a quid a month, especially in the lead up to the draft recently. During the footy season they've proved well worth it, from fantasy football discussions to in depth Liverpool content etc. If you go to cancel after the offer has finished, they'll generally extend it as well.

This is my position - they do better NFL coverage than almost anyone whilst offering some quality feature pieces. Was the content better when it was more expensive? Yes. Will it carry on operating in the current format under the current model? Absolutely not, they're haemorrhaging money and have been hawking their success all over different media platforms and podcasts, maybe trying to hide how desperate they are to sell. 

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Not financially it doesn't - they're in the shit and been looking for a sale for ages.

They must be burning through cash with the amount of journo's that they tempted away from their existing roles.

[CraigDS]

They must be burning through cash with the amount of journo's that they tempted away from their existing roles.

Yup, it's all VC cash too.

[newterp]

I'm really surprised that any VC would have thrown money at this.

Writing/magazines/newspapers are hard sells these days = unless you are willing to clutter the pages with sponsors.

[Drinks Sangria]

I'm really surprised that any VC would have thrown money at this.

Writing/magazines/newspapers are hard sells these days = unless you are willing to clutter the pages with sponsors.

I think they overegged the amount of interest people would have when it was a premium paid-for service, at £12 a month. A serious misstep they're now trying to get out of with a sale.

[Garrus]

I think it's pretty good. It's probably better value for money for people who like American sports too.

The writers are pretty good and some of their long reads are fantastic but the influx of trolls is grating. It would be better if they got rid of the comments section entirely I'd say (although this holds true for most places on the internet!).

[stoa]

Journalism is at an inflection point though and as consumers we need to place more value on well researched balanced journalism, and be prepared to pay for it because the alternative is there for all to see - just look at the once great Echo's coverage of Liverpool now.

To be honest, I do kind of think journalism as we know it is fucked. I say that as someone who works as a (local) journalist. For all the talk about "being prepared to pay for good journalism" I just don't see it happening. I just don't believe people will be paying a significant amount of money for something they can get elsewhere for free or they don't really care that much about. I'm kind of the same from a consumer point of view. Subscriptions for the Guardian, New York Times or other publications aren't that expensive. I just don't see the point in subscribing, when I can get quotes from the article or the gist of it on other websites or social media for free.

Information isn't worth anything anymore. 30 years ago, you needed a TV, radio and a newspaper to stay informed about what is going on in your local area and in the world. Nowadays, you take out your phone and everything is there. People were paying for a newspaper, because it had information they couldn't get elsewhere. That has changed massively with the internet and I don't see a way backwards. I hear stories about how great paywalls and stuff is working for local papers in Scandinavia at my place of work, but to be honest I don't really see it. It's just too difficult to make money online.

[Lone Star Red]

For me, the Liverpool coverage is quite underwhelming and I've made my thoughts about Pearce's writing pretty well known, so I won't beat a dead horse. Hughes is alright but nothing that I would pay for.

I enjoy the breadth of coverage I can get about the rest of the PL, the Bundesliga, PGA Tour, NBA, NCAA football, MLB, etc. That's really what I pay for. If you have significant interests in other sports, that's where it becomes worth it in my eyes. You want it only for Liverpool stuff? Save your money, it's not close to worth it.

[royhendo]

I guess the venture will be priced in line with a high risk, won't it? For me, it's worth paying for quality content - the only problem in the football context is that the content is rarely of the standard high enough to substantiate the extra money, because I actually prefer reading selected people's posts I have bookmarked (on here and elsewhere), and the quality of freely available analytics information is so good.

Elsewhere I think it's crucial though.

[MD1990]

For me, the Liverpool coverage is quite underwhelming and I've made my thoughts about Pearce's writing pretty well known, so I won't beat a dead horse. Hughes is alright but nothing that I would pay for.

I enjoy the breadth of coverage I can get about the rest of the PL, the Bundesliga, PGA Tour, NBA, NCAA football, MLB, etc. That's really what I pay for. If you have significant interests in other sports, that's where it becomes worth it in my eyes. You want it only for Liverpool stuff? Save your money, it's not close to worth it.

Hughes strikes me as someone who likes  football for the social element rather than being a huge fan of the game.

He just kept saying football is crap with fans every week last season rather than maybe being thankfull the games are still being played while not much else was going on.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

To be honest, I do kind of think journalism as we know it is fucked. I say that as someone who works as a (local) journalist. For all the talk about "being prepared to pay for good journalism" I just don't see it happening. I just don't believe people will be paying a significant amount of money for something they can get elsewhere for free or they don't really care that much about. I'm kind of the same from a consumer point of view. Subscriptions for the Guardian, New York Times or other publications aren't that expensive. I just don't see the point in subscribing, when I can get quotes from the article or the gist of it on other websites or social media for free.

Information isn't worth anything anymore. 30 years ago, you needed a TV, radio and a newspaper to stay informed about what is going on in your local area and in the world. Nowadays, you take out your phone and everything is there. People were paying for a newspaper, because it had information they couldn't get elsewhere. That has changed massively with the internet and I don't see a way backwards. I hear stories about how great paywalls and stuff is working for local papers in Scandinavia at my place of work, but to be honest I don't really see it. It's just too difficult to make money online.

I think people will pay, but in limited numbers and for quality.
I've had a couple of conversations with UK broadsheets that have tried to get me to subscribe and when I've asked them whether I'll still get clickbait headlines, or whether the editing will be better, or fewer ads, the answer has always been no, so that's been my answer too! That's why I think subs will be for lower volume specialist journalism rather than the broad brush coverage provided by traditional newspapers.
If you haven't read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, I'd recommend it. He covers fake news, what he calls churnalism; which is overworked "reporters" unable to fact check anything because they have x amount of stories to produce per shift, so just end up top and tailing stuff from other publications or the wires.
Reach plc which was Mirror Group aims to be the biggest non US owned media site in the UK and a visit to any of their websites shows the decline of local news in all its pop up and clickbait glory.

[Fromola]

Hughes strikes me as someone who likes  football for the social element rather than being a huge fan of the game.

He just kept saying football is crap with fans every week last season rather than maybe being thankfull the games are still being played while not much else was going on.

Given all the injuries and horrendous refereeing and VAR we had to put up with last season, you wished the games weren't being played to be honest as a Liverpool fan. It was just awful for the most part. Particularly that middle third.

Hughes is the type of writer that likes a good narrative. Reading his book on the 80's in Liverpool, he's very big on social history and that fees into his writing a lot. You can see why he just couldn't take to the games without a crowd, especially as he's there covering it. For someone like myself, I watch the game with the sound down anyway, as I can't stand listening to the  pundits and the shite other fans come out with when we play them.

[Fromola]

Very powerful piece of writing from our own Caoimhe O'Neill about the appalling abuse directed at women at the Euros from predominantly drunken England fans:

https://theathletic.com/2704711/2021/07/15/this-is-what-you-endure-watching-england-as-a-woman-misogyny-sexism-and-the-constant-fear-of-being-touched-without-consent/

https://twitter.com/search?q=Caoimhe%20O%27Neill%20&src=typed_query&f=live

[rafathegaffa83]

Very powerful piece of writing from our own Caoimhe O'Neill about the appalling abuse directed at women at the Euros from predominantly drunken England fans:

They need to take this outside the paywall. It's too important not to be read far and wide. A depressing read

[rossipersempre]

They need to take this outside the paywall. It's too important not to be read far and wide. A depressing read

Agree completely, don’t think they’ve ever done that though. Would be a worthy precedent, alongside Conway’s racism piece.

[Fromola]

They need to take this outside the paywall. It's too important not to be read far and wide. A depressing read

Agreed.

[Lone Star Red]

They’ve dropped it before for specific articles, if I recall correctly. Either when sports first stopped last year and/or during the height of the BLM protests last summer. Agreed that this article would be another powerful one to remove the paywall from. Wouldn’t be surprised if they do within the next 12-24 hours.

[Six Beardy]

This is a handy website for seeing articles hidden behind paywalls (or on sites you need to register to read), just type in the url and the chances are it's already been archived, if not  it will archive it for you...

www.archive.is

eg...

https://archive.is/X52ps