Hadrian Lau / Staff reporter
Bias can be found in many contemporary soccer news. The location and the target demographic can affect how the articles were written. Articles such as “Premier League’s proposed player pay cut makes sense but players deserve to know where that money’s going” by Gabrielle Marcotti from ESPN, “Premier League players and pay cuts: the key questions answered” by Paul Maclnnes from The Guardian and “PFA says Premier League 30% pay cut plans would harm NHS” by Dan Roan and Simon Stone from the BBC, presented biased information of the English Premier League’s proposal to cater to their local and global audience.
ESPN suggested that the wage cut “makes sense.” As ESPN is news channel focused on reporting sports, they want to have a good relationship with different clubs in order to get the information they need for their articles, especially information that other news channel doesn’t have. That’s why Marcotti focused on the benefits of the clubs.
He stated that the purpose of the wage cut is for the clubs to reduce expenses, and to protect not only the players, but also the workers in the clubs. The article also displayed data that show that players’ wages are one of the highest expanses between the clubs, but it didn’t show the effect might happen to the players’ livelihood and the government after the wage cut.
The Guardian also displayed their support on the player’s wage cut. Maclnnes stated “player wages will have to come down and not just because the public will demand it” because “political and social media pressure continue to rise.” The Guardian, as one of the biggest news channels in the United Kingdom, decide to propose a choice which can make the people in UK agree with them.
Although the Premier League owns a special place within the UK citizens, it is also a recognizable symbol of financial inequality. When the league is funded by the government, many other big companies who didn’t receive the fund have a bad impression on the Premier League. Especially in this period of time, when the league has stopped providing their entertainments, many people and businesses started to request the government to reduce or stop funding the league and reduce the players’ wages.
Different from the other two articles, BBC doesn’t support the soccer players’ wage cut. As most of the interviews and quotes of the article are from the Professional Footballers’ Association, as known as the PFA, this article is written based on the PFA’s point of view. Which is the wage cut will harm the NHS because the wage cut will decreases tax contributions of more than 200 million pounds to the UK government. At the same time, the PFA often make decisions that will benefit the players the most, the article tends to write about the disadvantages about the wage cut.
The Guardian and ESPN share the same views while BBC has a different point of view over this controversial topic. ESPN supports the players’ wage reduction because of its audience, as most of the people who are interested in that channel are sports lovers. The Guardian also supports the wage cut because of proximity and audience impact. BBC opposes the wage cut because it wrote the article based on others opinion and lack of information, which created bias.
Media is the most popular way for people to get information. If the media itself has bias, it will affect how people understand and react to the things that are happening around the world. For example, media can affect fan’s support for the clubs or create bad public figures for players. It might even create conflicts between the community and in the worst case, distort the reality.