THE FUTURE of sports journalism is the subject of this article. I hesitated before choosing this approach. I could have written a pompous article, full of expensive words and La Palisse truths that are difficult to refute by someone with a minimum of common sense and aware of the world around him. Or I could go the other way. Be more straightforward, more emotional and certainly much more frank. I chose the second. For two reasons. To begin with, I didn’t take any Journalism course – I come from the world of law and everything I know about this profession was not learned either at the University or in the Media treaties. I learned with practice, that is, from what I was taught in newsrooms, my experience on the ground and through observation and intuition, of course. I have always been very curious and this helps a lot in a profession where everything must be questioned, especially the seemingly “absolute” truths. I have been a journalist for more than three decades; when I started there were no computers, Internet, mobile phones and social media. The first time I covered an event abroad as a special envoy, I took a very heavy iron typewriter (Remington) with me and sent the service (that’s how it was called back then: service) by telex. My children don’t know what that is. The Berlin wall was still standing, but Mikhail Gorbachev was preparing the fall – of the wall, of the USSR, of communism – with two words that caused furore in the West: ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’. I shared during these times of profound and fast change the eagerness of those who know they are living History.

Thirty years ago, sports journalism covered the same issues just like today – basically football, with exhaustive news coverage of the big three: Benfica, FC Porto, Sporting; it is worth mentioning, to avoid any doubts, that Portugal does not have a sports culture as this is not a country of sports – unlike Spain, France, England and Germany, just to mention European countries. Portugal is above all a football country that, in turn, is dominated by [read: the rivalry between] three major clubs that represent the overwhelming majority of fans and almost the entire sports business. Athletes from other sports only receive media coverage when they achieve triumphs and medals in important international competitions, which, apart from the phenomenon of canoeing (where serious, rigorous and sustained investment was made), is very sporadic.

But coming back to the beginning, the way parties related with each other was indeed very different. There was not a single television channel specialized in sports (today there are a number of them: Sport TV, Bola TV, Eleven, Canal 11, Benfica TV, Sporting TV, Porto Canal…) and football did not fill a substantial part of the agenda and programs of general-interest channels. Sports newspapers (there used to be four: Bola, Record, Gazeta dos Desportos, Jogo) came out three times a week. There was less pressure. Far less. There were not news every second. There was time to breathe. And journalists, officials, athletes and coaches were closer to each other. It was an open relationship (sometimes promiscuous and self-serving) without today’s corsets and constraints. I think that, in general, Journalism back then, compared to what we have today, was of better quality – and this holds true in all areas. It was a more in-depth journalism. There was greater care. It was more reflective. Less contaminated. I don’t mean that all journalists back in the day were luminaries – far from it! This generation, in my opinion, is technically far better prepared than mine for the demands of the profession. But times and circumstances were different. Football was not an industry, but a game and, very importantly, it didn’t involve the interests and the very large million sums that it involves today. The media had more time to prepare the topics and newspapers, radios and televisions still did not suffer the fierce competition from the Internet. From sites. From social media. All free of charge. Accessible with just one click. Free of charge. I repeat: free of charge. Nor was there, like today, a more enlightened and demanding public with almost unlimited means to make themselves read/heard and reach thousands of consumers. This makes a huge difference and has led to profound change in the relationship between (paid) journalism and the consuming public. As the heads of the Media companies are well aware of.

Sports journalism is going through difficult times and the pandemic did aggravate this. Newspapers, as is well known, witnessed already a decline in newsstand sales. Now they sell even less. The print runs and sales of A Bola and Record (I worked on both) are a scant memory of the time when it was possible to prepare an issue aiming at 200 thousand newsstand sales – and believe me, they were able to sell such number of copies. The same goes for the services across all media and platforms. The “scoops” are the same in A Bola, Record and Jogo newspapers, on SIC, TVI, RTP TV channels on websites, on Facebook. They are the same because they all come from the same sources. News become public property in seconds, making it difficult to ascertain who reported it “first hand” – an almost archaic concept. In newspapers, the way news are approached is dangerously close to the web format – short and flashy titles, sensationalist if possible, small texts filled with highlights and reading points. I grew up reading national and foreign reference newspapers (with texts longer than two paragraphs and articles of investigative journalism with two, three and four pages) and I am not happy with the progressive “infantilisation” of information, which is formatted and served as if the brain of most consumers does could not stand more than two minutes of reading. Televisions channels may be able to curtail this minimalist information trend, fast paced and not very juicy, but here, too, I believe that the requirements are not that high anymore. I remember that until recently, the general-interest channels with the largest audience aired football debate programs that were nothing more than a noisy exercise of exacerbated clubite – some resembling rather pub talk. It’s great to secure audiences but it’s not there in more advanced football industries like the English and the German. There is surely a reason for that.

Information, on the other hand, has never been more controlled than today. Access to sources is severely limited by clubs that have their own televisions and media channels. These work, above all (and understandably) as advertising and as a mean to sell club marketing. Do not expect exemption and impartiality from a television or a club newspaper. That is not what they are there for. The problem is that the raw material it sells (in our case: Benfica, Porto, Sporting) is no longer within the reach of non-engaged journalism. We seldom see today an interview with a manager, coach and athlete of the big three – I repeat: those who sell the most – that is not biased. There are exceptions, of course, but very little in number. Everything is programmed and formatted according to the moment and the idea to be conveyed. This is not the role of impartial journalism. It is worth mentioning that theoretically independent journalism has aligned too often with interests outside the mission of informing, and audiences and sales in newsstands cannot be the ultimate goal alone. Cronyism and promiscuity have always been there in all areas and professions – for some reason this is the country where putting on a nice word for someone and circumventing rules is common practice! – but I can’t help regretting the fact that there are so many examples, in so many latitudes, of uncritical, subservient and biased journalism.

Basically, we have to refocus. There will always be consumers of tabloid format journalism, whether written or audio-visual – out there and everywhere, from the United States and England to Brazil and Indonesia – but we should avoid reducing everything to a common denominator. There are people who want more. Fortunately. In my view, the future of quality journalism – sports included, obviously – must engage e a true back to basics. The return to the noblest goal of this profession. To inform. Clarifying. Generating doubt and discussion. Telling stories – and sports does provide material for good stories! It’s as simple as that. Quality information has costs. Whoever wants to have good reporters, good writers, good investigative journalists and respected opinion makers will be willing to pay for it. Quality can never be free of charge. Those who want more will pay for it. It has always been like that.

That is why I see only a way out: niches of quality journalism for consumers who identify with the kind of fast, cheap and undemanding information that today makes inroads everywhere. The path, I am sure, can only be this. Newspapers devoted not to breaking news – this is instantly ensured by radio, television and the Internet – but to comment, detail and analyse from different angles. Fast food on the one hand, gourmet meals on the other. I mean thorough information, more rigorous, more comprehensive, in a word: more stimulating, that, like a good book, captivates our attention and compels us to think. Because there will always be those who feel the need for more and better information. Because there will always be those who feel the need to go further and deeper, avoiding the temptation to froth on the daydream.