that's twice as much as the Washington Post sold for
I wonder how many Athletic subscribers are actually full price and not on reduced/free introductory deals
There's the crux of the biscuit (hi Stinkfoot).
I signed on for a discount fee my first year of subscribing. Mostly so I could monitor their use of images I take in my sports agency work. Decent numbers, bland layouts.
Then paid full whack the second year. Then got piszsed off when that slimey Arsenal cnut Eccleshair got the Spurs beat. So, I did not renew this year and am getting pelted with offers to sign for about 1/3 of a normal subscription fee. Still not biting, living nicely without it.
I've found better NFL coverage just by reading Peter King's tremendous Monday column, Football Morning in America. One of the best sports writers anywhere. That's all I really need to cover my NFL interest which begins - avidly - with the Green Bay Packers and extends mildly to the nearby Buffalo Bills and Cleveland Browns.
I've found abundant and equally good PL coverage in free media or what rolls out for free on Youtube channels a couple of days after being shown on subscription feeds.
I've found abundant and equally good motorsport (NASCAR and F1) coverage via Reddit.
I get my fix of sports venue information for free at Skyscraper City . com.
I want to support good journalism. I make my living in that field and do a good job of contributing my share of quality coverage. But when the Arfletic can't find a way to cover Spurs without using the same childish, rib-poking tactic as the Daily Mail - hire an Arsenal fan - then they've lost me.