Great - lots of *insight* into market disruption.
Now pray tell how you differentiate against a competitor who does want, need, or know how to charge, and a client who would happily take poorer quality work, on longer timescales than actually pay.
If a client is prepared to take lower quality work over an extended timescale, then that's what you supply. If they want that for nothing, and you're not willing to do it for free, then don't.
Professionals have innovated with higher quality (overall image and the technical quality), faster workflow, improved captioning, speed of delivery, and so given all of those adaptions and then the further differentiation of professional conduct, journalistic integrity, and reliability what is *your* suggestion as to their next step to service that market ?
Because charging zero obviously isn't the answer.
Professionals have innovated, and thats to be both commended and expected. Local papers have too. Most are now free. There isn't really any competition locally so there's no real benefit to doing anything other than keeping costs to a minimum while maximising advertising revenue.
They will post as many papers through the letter boxes of locals as they care to print regardless of whether the photo of the local derby on the back page is taken with an iPhone by little Johnny's dad or David Bailey.
Of course there are exceptions to this, some local rags still charge and they do need to do something to differentiate themselves from the free papers. I would have thought there would be some market here for paid shots, although perhaps speed of workflow are not so important on Weekly circulations.
Of course one answer is you walk away from it, and service a client who will pay (Nationals, Magazines, Corporate clients, Social photography) or indeed hang up your camera ..... but I'd love to hear a suggestion from you or indeed anybody how you compete in that marketplace against people who don't charge and stop laying the blame on lazy or stuck-in-their-ways established professionals.
Because it's really easy to walk into a thread and lay down that accusation or challenge and a heck of a lot harder to solve the problem.
If free images are meeting the needs of the client, and the client is meeting the needs of the customer, be it an advertiser or a consumer, then all you can really do is walk away.
If you have the opportunity to influence the customers, that's an option. If a pay service can get customers while competing with a free service, it must be for a reason. Perhaps that's higher quality content or perhaps is a lack of adverts. Perhaps it's because of comprehensive coverage of the more obscure matches.
What can you do to influence the consumer?
Speaking as a consumer, I don't rely on papers for coverage of any sport I'm interested in. When my kid used to play locally, I'd go myself. Everyone there had a camera of sorts, even if it's a phone, so where's the value to a consumer in those cases?
If there's no value to a consumer, then it's not going to be of value to the publisher.
I'm presuming that as you go higher up the leagues there is a degree of restriction in terms of access / accreditation which changes this dynamic and therefore I presume there is more of a market?
If true, the differentiator is getting yourself in a position to take the photos in the first place. Another would be the simplicity by which others can buy them. The number of events you routinely cover (so perhaps picture editors will reach for you first etc).
At the end of the day some markets have gone. There realistically isn't anything you can do to put that genie back in the bottle and if that's the case, move on.