The money to be made in the Football League ...£££ ...er... no ...ppp

Messages
57
Edit My Images
No
Just got paid by Rex for 'various' photos ...£1.37 and a whole £5 for one picture used on the Guardian website. It is really an insult to the profession that agencies sell work for so little. With kit insurance and that £5million public liability insurance demanded by Dataco to pay for on top of petrol and time and data cards etc it really is a joke and an insulting one at that to expect me to send in a good selection of match photos from a top of the league team, not a team struggling at the bottom, or one that's not firing in good goals, all for £6.37. So all you who think you will get rich quick as a sports photographer should seriously take up baking if you knead to make dough.
 
One reason why I am an amateur. I am the web master for my local football club which is step 7 standard. And something I do for free because I am a lifelong supporter and I enjoy photography. The only perk I get is free entry (£4). To me the reward is capturing a great action shot but for those like yourself and others it must be so disheartening.
 
The thing with football in the UK is that it is so over-supplied with images... and the bigger agencies can sell images for few £'s and still roll in a profit (and pay the few staff photographers) as their images are distributed all over the world... guess that is the blessing and curse of having a league that is followed in most countries around the world.
But for the individual photographer, or a small agency in the UK ... I can see how it is hard to make it worth it financially to cover the games on those rates.

There is still money to be made from sport photography - but it is moving away from the 'traditional' way of selling your images to newspapers...
 
No body does force me to do it. Rex pays for the half time mars bar. The point behind my post was not to be told don't file with them but to get a mature discussion going that may result in more professionals emailing agencies and making their point rather than sit back and accept the flooding the market with mediocre images. My three commissions per match bring in the £££ thank you. Rex seem to have most league photographers on their books and if more/all spoke up then maybe the value of agency work could improve. I don't believe it ever will but hey Brexit/Trump, who would have thought?
 
Last edited:
You can get as chippy as you like, but the fact remains that Rex are bulk supply agency that rely on minuscule subscription/publication deals with the papers to make their margin. They don't give a stuff about photographers.


The only way to make your voice heard is to stop supplying them.

As soon as more club photographers realise that, their core supply line will start to diminish.

Same goes for the agencies which syndicate via them just to keep their publication turnover up.
 
Last edited:
It's not a dig at you. It's a comment about Rex's business model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
When I step back and look at it I'm not even entirely sure the problem is Rex itself. Their platform operates on a business model that takes advantage of both the abundance of willing photographers out there and the media's desperate need for cheap images. But if Rex were ever to become more expensive then there's nothing really stopping another competitor offering an alternative platform that undercuts Rex on price. It's much the same as other genres of photography where it was once possible to earn a living solely from the craft but the accessibility of camera equipment and ease of use has leveled the playing field to the point that almost anyone can have a go. The fact many of those have other jobs means that they can afford to drive the prices down to the point that photography becomes a secondary or part income for majority of sole operators.

The only solution I can really see is to cut the problem off at the source which is effectively the fact that there are too many photographers supplying images. Nobody would like it but if you capped the number of photographers at each ground then it throttles the supply making the product rarer and more valuable.

Maybe I'm looking at things from a bit too much of a black and white perspective though and others can see better solutions?
 
The only solution I can really see is to cut the problem off at the source which is effectively the fact that there are too many photographers supplying images. Nobody would like it but if you capped the number of photographers at each ground then it throttles the supply making the product rarer and more valuable.

I think that there would be one way to reduce the amount of images flooding the market .. although probably would not effect that fact that websites/papers still would only want to pay £5/image.
But it is easy to push the price down if you have 50 photographers at game.. and then as a newspaper you receive 50 images of the winning goal celebration... then that image is probably worth the smallest amount possible for the news outlet.
Of course then there are the 'standard rates' for images at most papers.. so you probably would not get away from those.

You can see the cuts in budgets in media when you go to various events ... lot of the time the organiser of the event is providing FREE images to media (happens from many continental competitions, European championships and World Championships). So even on events at that level, you need to be offering something else than just the 'basic' action images from the field, to be hired by someone to cover the events.

And as Craig said above.. the accessibility to equipment has changed the playing field in photography... and whether you (or I) think that the client is not paying enough for me for my images... there will ALWAYS be someone waiting who would do it for even less. So if you are used to supplying your images for a client for, let's say £100/image.. but the company needs to make cuts... so they tell you that from now on it is only £80/image... you say No... and they will find 10 photographers waiting to do it for £80... (and then they lower the price again in a year or two... with same effect).

Unfortunately photography is a line of work where we can all set our own prices... so just because some price is OK for Joe Public... it might not be OK for you...
 
When I step back and look at it I'm not even entirely sure the problem is Rex itself....

No you are right. It isn't.

The problem is DataCo itself which, two and a half seasons ago, started to relax its rules and allow a non-licensed body to syndicate images which came under their jurisdiction.

As soon as Rex was allowed into the market (they'd been warned off a couple of times) they slashed prices and screwed everyone that wasn't a wire agency or staffer.
 
You could always turn the tables on this...
Us photographers always look for the best prices (and many also order from overseas to avoid VAT and get items cheaper) ... so where as we moan that what our clients pay for images to us.
We ourselves then use ways to look to buy our gear from places that offer them cheaper than UK based shops...

As much as it hurts to have the £'s we get for our images slashed.. it is a open market place.. where often the buyer can decide what to pay for an image.
And as been said in post above.. it is rare that you get a picture of Premier League game that no-one else has... so in that way, our pictures are not unique enough to warrant higher prices for it.

(and this not yet even going down the path of no-one really buying newspapers anymore... so papers lose revenue... and of course we photographers always BUY the newspapers.. and don't just read them online for free ;-) )
 
You'd be surprised how often that happens!

Maybe not from the exact same angle... but with most of us using long lenses to cover the games...sometimes you might get the goal cele running towards you (and you are the only one in that corner).
But the picture that is used is from a 'cheaper' source .. but taken from the other end of the pitch..
So what I meant that the same situation is covered from multiple angles... and it is isn't always the 'best angle' image that gets published.
 
And yet there are still picture editors doing exactly that. It happened to me this Sunday.
 
And yet there are still picture editors doing exactly that. It happened to me this Sunday.

I am sure picture editors don't always get to choose the image they want - I would imagine they have bosses who tell them what the budget is for images.
So no matter how much she/he wants to use that brilliant head-on cele image... that would set him back £100 ... where as the one from the other end... well, it comes as part of their annual deal with Agency X... so she/he has to choose that one ...

And I can only imagine how frustrating it is Mark if/when this happens to you...
 
Rex are getting back to me to discuss the issue next week. They said they would prefer to talk rather than conduct an email discussion.
 
When I step back and look at it I'm not even entirely sure the problem is Rex itself. Their platform operates on a business model that takes advantage of both the abundance of willing photographers out there and the media's desperate need for cheap images. But if Rex were ever to become more expensive then there's nothing really stopping another competitor offering an alternative platform that undercuts Rex on price. It's much the same as other genres of photography where it was once possible to earn a living solely from the craft but the accessibility of camera equipment and ease of use has leveled the playing field to the point that almost anyone can have a go. The fact many of those have other jobs means that they can afford to drive the prices down to the point that photography becomes a secondary or part income for majority of sole operators.

The only solution I can really see is to cut the problem off at the source which is effectively the fact that there are too many photographers supplying images. Nobody would like it but if you capped the number of photographers at each ground then it throttles the supply making the product rarer and more valuable

Maybe I'm looking at things from a bit too much of a black and white perspective though and others can see better solutions?
.



I have to say still trying to irk out a living from sports snapping todays Football games, shot on spec hoping for use, is dead IMHO!

You only really now have the Sun as a none, "major agency", user!

None premier use in the Star has been cut to almost nowt!, Daily Mail only now use major agency,(already subscribed to), or Rex (almost free)!. Trinity Mirror group now insist on usage from the regional staffers within the group (not a real surprise?).

So upshot is, either accept the odd Sun pic, or fall into the clutches of Rex & submit through them as all the papers know they are all but free :(.

Alternatively show you're the dog's danglies & get on the books with AI, Getty etc & get a guaranteed shift payment:).
 
Last edited:
Well I had one of my football pics on the front page of the BBC main web page on Monday. It was a shot of Dario Gradi from 2011! Focus Images doesn't supply the BBC, but back in 2011 we did send to Rex for a little while, where the BBC got it from. So that'll be £0.30 coming my way I imagine.
Is that before FI's percentage?
 
I know nothing of this world of selling sports images for use in the media, but I'm shocked at how low the payments are for photographers.

A couple of years ago a production company contacted me for permission to use a photograph I had posted to Twitter on a BBC TV programme. They paid me £150 for a phone snap!
 
Well I had one of my football pics on the front page of the BBC main web page on Monday. It was a shot of Dario Gradi from 2011! Focus Images doesn't supply the BBC, but back in 2011 we did send to Rex for a little while, where the BBC got it from. So that'll be £0.30 coming my way I imagine.

That'll pay for the internet usage you spent sending that post :-D
 
We can all see the fee paid to the photographer for usage in papers or websites is quite honestly laughable but on a more serious note... Why is this paid fee so low?? hardly softens or justifys the blow for the amount spent buying the kit, travelling too or from venue, time away from family. Where's the incentive to continue as a sports photographer. Is the industry that bad these days? :(:(
 
The fee isn't that low in the National papers, albeit that it hasn't risen much in years. Some papers pay less, such as the broadsheets, but the papers will still pay reasonable money for a shot that they want.

The main issue (Wire agencies aside) is that Rex in particular has made deals with most of the papers at such a ridiculously low rate that their product will always be picked ahead of any other on-spec images.
Rex don't care about the photographers. They care about volume publications, which is how they make their money, and in the process they are shafting everyone else.
 
Where's the incentive to continue as a sports photographer.

Shooting top flight sport just happens to be amazing. A massive buzz, and hugely challenging from a technical perspective. It's massively rewarding (though not in the pocket). I'd venture most sports shooters shoot other stuff during the week these days, except the few staffers that are out there.
 
I don't send pics to rex... so I dont get ripped off ..I average 120+ per pic from a national paper and average £60 a set from regionals.. I stick to lower division football.. less photogrpahers but still published.. however the nationals are few and far between.. I class them as bonus sales and cant rely on them as a revenue stream. I only go when on a commision from a regional paper.

Photographer A on a tuesday evening is at old trafford photographing man utd on spec competing with 40 other photogrpahers and going home having made nothing.. But all his mates on facebook are jealous.. Same night photographer B is sat at a grass roots ground with a flask and a balaclava on shooting a kids county match and making over £100 .. Which photographer is doing well? The problem I see is people thinking Photogrpaher A is the best because he is at old trafford photographing man united....

I guess it's..Are we doing this to make money.. or because its exciting?

Nearly nine years full time sports Photographer and making more money each year than the year before :)
 
Photographer A on a tuesday evening is at old trafford photographing man utd on spec competing with 40 other photogrpahers and going home having made nothing.. But all his mates on facebook are jealous.. Same night photographer B is sat at a grass roots ground with a flask and a balaclava on shooting a kids county match and making over £100 .

What a great comment very true as someone not really in this type of work or suppose fully understands. This is still above my pay grade, apart from finding out the hard way is there a photographers black list of agencies not to go near then? As for GETTY IMAGES for example I can see an agency at literally every event so they must charge to be... where ever and... reward the photographer for doing so, no? with money fairly paid
 
What a great comment very true as someone not really in this type of work or suppose fully understands. This is still above my pay grade, apart from finding out the hard way is there a photographers black list of agencies not to go near then? As for GETTY IMAGES for example I can see an agency at literally every event so they must charge to be... where ever and... reward the photographer for doing so, no? with money fairly paid


To be honest Paul, Getty snappers are usually up there with the dogs danglies of photographers!! & most are either staff or trusted stringers!.

The agency has always had a strong strangle hold on supply due to the, "pay now & pick & mix from our library content" for many years. Recently they have hit harder times & so, are competing with Rex as a newer foe along with Action Images, which is now syndicated as Reuters, for ground they always had.

Budgets for National newspapers are squeezed to the max, forget the "they'll pay if they want it" term used, especially in football, as unless it's a news breaking event, they wont!, they'll go straight to the first free/cheap images supplied!

As for a black list, I'm guessing it's how low down the paid/supplied scale your willing to go?(n). Kind regards Graham.
 
I have spoken to Rex and asked that a minimum price be set on the use of my images. Unless the user agrees to pay they cannot download my images from the Rex server. It seems that this way my work has a value that I place upon it otherwise with no price value, the images are downloaded and used at the minimum fee agreed between that user and Rex, which may well be very little. I would prefer my work not to be used rather than give it away for pence. The £1.37 that I made on various images were from a French magazine who got the image from Corbis who took their cut and they got it from Rex who took their cut! Agencies will buy from agencies when they are asked for an image they don't have and will search for the cheapest price available in order for them to sell on for more.

It seems that some web use of pictures comes from nicked photos off one site and used on another and it is up to me as the photographer to chase the second site or report the site to Rex for them to investigate. I did point out 5 of my images were on a site this weekend and Rex asked me for the link and were able to say where the site had got the images from. I have now followed up and invoiced the other site. Had I not done a search for my own images, I would never have known.

I spoke to Dataco as well and their take was, it is us who put our images through Rex or any other agency. We are licensed to take photos and the Dataco buck stops with us. They don't 'licence' the agencies. If Rex or and other sells our images that we give to them to do so and they are misused ,then Dataco will come after us not the agency. We have to make sure our images are not appearing where they shouldn't If we let agencies sell our work for a pittance, then that is up to us. The only way is to set a limit. No more mars bars for me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure that resolves the situation though. Unless you have unique images such that nobody else can offer alternatives at a lower price point then surely you'll end up in much the same place as before with potential clients finding they can get their images elsewhere for cheaper?
 
True but then if everyone put a realistic price on their work, it would help the profession if agencies could not just give work away for the least amount of money. Its up to individuals to decide on their value and clients will get what they pay for. Derisory pricing is an insult to the time and effort put in but it's already there and not likely to go away. C'est la vie.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that you'll never get everybody to set prices at that level. There's always someone that can either afford to cut prices or just will out of spite.

I had a similar like scenario at the weekend in another sport where a competitor missed out on a club photographer position and decided he'd drop all his prices as well as give away free images to attempt to kill the business of the other photographers. His hope was that since there was no guaranteed money for him he'd try to drive away the competition by creating an environment where nobody could make money. All that he really did though was devalue the product to the point that the potential clients now think they are going to have high quality images for little to nothing from now on. From my perspective it was just an infuriatingly selfish and stupid move.
 
Yes they have put a price restriction on my images.
Well done.More photographers need to do that. My position is the same as yours I have no interest in my photographs going out via Rex at all. The amount they pay is so small I would sooner not have the money. Rex and the BBC website is not worth the trouble at all. When Rex say they will take a live feed for a match they start dictating which way to go and then pay a pittanc. Rex are a waste of time I don't understand why anyone deals with them.
 
Well done.More photographers need to do that. My position is the same as yours I have no interest in my photographs going out via Rex at all. The amount they pay is so small I would sooner not have the money. Rex and the BBC website is not worth the trouble at all. When Rex say they will take a live feed for a match they start dictating which way to go and then pay a pittanc. Rex are a waste of time I don't understand why anyone deals with them.

It's not really the individual photographers that are the problem though it's the smaller agencies and the fact that a platform like Rex is permitted to exist in the first place. The lure of Rex to smaller agencies is clearly the fact it has been allowed to establish itself as one of the major recognised sources that clients will go to for sports images. Effectively it's an ocean of photos filled by the smaller agency pools. When you put a platform like that in front of the picture desks, it's going to be a lot more appealing to them to search the bigger database of images on one site than it is to go around the websites of dozens of smaller agencies looking for the right photos.

If you take Rex out of the equation then the picture desks would either have to turn to the bigger libraries of the likes of Getty or trawl through the smaller agencies.

This isn't a problem that is limited to photography though. The internet and the convenience it brings with the way it can connect people has destroyed plenty of industries over the years. Just look at High Street stores who can't compete with the choice or prices available online. Being connected is fantastic but it also has a lot of drawbacks when it comes to selling products as your clients are connected to more of your competitors and many of them are so desperate to make a sale that they'll drop their prices to do so.

As KIPAX highlighted above the remaining money really is in shooting sports where you are the only photographer producing a product that there is some demand for.
 
Back
Top