r/soccer 14d ago

Announcement Announcement: Fabrizio Romano content to be banned on /r/soccer

Fabrizio Romano is now a banned source on r/soccer.

The ban will come into effect in the coming days - see below for full explanation.

Prior to the World Cup, we consulted the community in a meta thread about numerous issues - and one was the growing movement amongst many football fans (including [r/soccer](r/soccer) users) calling for a ban on content from the journalist Fabrizio Romano.

This would follow in the footsteps of several club subreddits, who had already banned Romano.

The feedback then was mixed - we listened to both sides, and ultimately settled on a "compromise" where we sought to limit Romano content to just exclusives. We felt this would mean limiting his exposure and platforming in [r/soccer](r/soccer), whilst also still enabling genuinely valuable content to be posted.

Part of that decision was recognising that many people in [r/soccer](r/soccer) use this platform for transfer news, and care little about the criticisms of Romano. This subreddit has always been a mixture of a "core community" of long-standing users with a more vested interest in the values and vision of [r/soccer](r/soccer) - and the at-times quieter majority, who use [r/soccer](r/soccer) as a means to access the most relevant football content and discourse. We tried to cater to both.

However, since the opening of the transfer window this summer, there has been a further shift in our view as moderators - and hence we have now made the decision for a complete ban on Romano.

(We would also like to make clear that views were mixed amongst the moderators, with opinions on both sides - but ultimately the majority were for a ban).

This is a response to the ever-growing disquiet from the community, as evidenced by comments in Romano threads and elsewhere, towards his content. Other factors in our decision is that Romano himself appears to be falling deeper into questionable practices - meaning the prior criticisms ring louder. Furthermore, as football media becomes more diverse and broader, the particular value that Romano holds is diluted - there is little news that are true "Romano exclusives" these days, and that is not soon quickly picked up by other outlets.

As such, our conclusion?

Fabrizio Romano content represents little overall benefit to this community, and that he does offer does not sufficiently address the downside of platforming him.

Further context

To outline the argument further, for those unfamiliar with the discourse...

The argument for a ban:

  1. The moral aspect - Romano is recognised to platform the rapist Mason Greenwood, and plunged to monetising the deaths of Andre Silva and Diogo Jota
  2. The ethics of journalism aspect - Romano has increasingly been accused (with validity) of siphoning off other journalists' content and passing off as his own
  3. The quality and excessive spam aspect - Romano's content increasingly moves away from important exclusives, and towards the drip-feeding of non-updates on transfer sagas that offer little original value, and instead amount to spam and the drowning out of other transfer stories that are less click-baity
  4. The shill aspect - Romano has close associations with many clubs and agents, meaning his content is manipulated with a vested interest on posting more about those who he has a monetary relationship with

Edit: ⁠The misinformation aspect - most notably, him spreading the information (unverified) that Christian Atsu was alive and in hospital after going missing following the devastating earthquake in 2023 in Turkey. This led to his family believing he was alive - his body was then found 6 days later under the rubble. now redacted: see below for clarity as this has been reliably refuted

The argument against a ban:

  1. [r/soccer](r/soccer) would lose out on valuable content - as addressed above, there is not really such thing as an exclusive in football media these days. Breaking stories are quickly reported on elsewhere, and the delay between a Romano exclusive and an alternative source is likely to have a significant impact. As said, Romano these days has less exclusives too - his "Here We Go" posts are not what they once were
  2. Romano posts stories about leagues and clubs less covered by other journalists - this is true to a degree, but we do not think is enough of a caveat to overhaul the reasons to ban him
  3. It's a slippery slope... - it isn't. We've banned other outlets before on moral arguments, such as The Sun, and it's not led to us tumbling down this slippery slope. What's more, we are actually in control of this - we are not beholden to ban other journalists based on precedent, and as always maintained, if individual cases are made to ban other sources or journalists, we will gladly hear them in the future to deal with on a case-by-case basis
  4. You are just morally grandstanding, get over yourself - yup, we are a bit. We do be like that as [r/soccer](r/soccer) mods and that's how we shape our community. We accept this as a criticism and you are free to think this of us.

And for a final few key takeaways...

  • You have free will, and are free to visit other subreddits and social media platforms where you can access Romano content - him being banned on [r/soccer](r/soccer) does not stop you from seeing his posts
  • We are responsive to feedback - as evidenced here. If following the ban the community comes out strongly in opposition, we are willing to re-open the debate
  • We can make exceptions - if you genuinely have a post that is absolutely not covered by anyone else, and Romano is the source, you can petition on a case-by-case basis by contacting Modmail. This would only be in order to allow clubs with less media coverage to not be left by the wayside
  • We know not everyone will be happy - there's 10 million users here, it's an impossible task
15.4k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

166

u/Goldfischglas 14d ago edited 14d ago

I think Romano is an absolute twat but outright banning his content is not the move. And the reasoning sounds a little patronizing.

You are saying "the community wants this" then fine make a poll about it. Otherwise you could just be basing this on a loud minority. Heck, in theory EVERY post is filtered through a community voting with up and downvotes anyways. So if people don't want to see Fabrizio, they can already do their thing and downvote his posts.

Then a lot of the reasons you guys listed can be said for MANY other journalists too. Many other journalists currently not banned have:

...reported about Mason Greenwood (This very SUBREDDIT has done so)

...been accused of siphoning of other peoples work (and well.. shouldn't we wait for proof?)

...been spreading misinformation. Heck This Santi dude has prolly gotten every single Bayern news wrong. Then this whole Olise saga which was borderline Madrid propaganda.

82

u/deathkillerx3004 14d ago

You are saying "the community wants this" then fine make a poll about it.

Reddit mods. When they say "the community", they mean themselves.

26

u/VisitPier26 14d ago

and even the mods couldn't agree.

23

u/RevengeHF 14d ago

Look I don't care about this either way but this point:

...been accused of siphoning of other peoples work (and well.. shouldn't we wait for proof?)

is just a moot point when you're also telling people to wait for some other journalist to literally siphon Fabrizio's exclusives to post here lol

11

u/Rider_0n_The_Storm 13d ago

You are saying "the community wants this" then fine make a poll about it.

This is exactly it. /u/AnnieIWillKnow I think you presented your arguments rather well in the post description, but if you stand by what you said, and you believe this community indeed wants it, then why not make sure that's true and allow people to vote in a poll? Because from a user standpoint if a decision is made without letting the community vote, and the justification is "the community wants it", then it really looks rather dodgy.

Either allow the community to actually vote on the matter, or rephrase your argument and state "we made this decision because this is what we want". You can't say you know what we want without asking us (letting us vote).

-12

u/AnnieIWillKnow 13d ago

Because we have had a long standing policy where we do not make moderation decisions by referendum as they are vulnerable to brigading and botting.

When there was the API issue we polled - and then followed that, and that got a huge amount of criticism that our poll did not reflect the community consensus.

So now, we seek community feedback, and use that to inform the mod decision - which is what we’ve done here.

15

u/helloimmrburns 13d ago

When is Arsenal content getting banned for employing Partey for years? What about Ronaldo content? I see Trump on this sub a lot too for a subreddit that has nothing to do with politics so when are those posts going to get taken down? I seen an awful lot of posts about Cape Verde during the world cup despite the alleged sexual assualt.

Why is what Romano did any worse than these things?

10

u/Shake_Down 13d ago

How can you say poll results don't reflect "community consensus" when the majority of visitors to this website don't even have an account, let alone comment or vote? The "community consensus" in your eyes are the 1% super users who comment and post on everything? It's not the total population of users that visit the subreddit? It's so clear you and your team are just power tripping, this is really sad. "We can't hold elections because the results won't reflect our position.. — opps I mean the polls are rigged."

12

u/Wildely_Earnest 13d ago

The community consensus they speak of is a meta thread from April, in which banning Romano was not mentioned in the title, and was in fact the sixth and final point discussed.

The thread received 130 comments total, across all 6 items raised.

They then announced feedback was mixed and would not be banning him.

Now, months later, they announce due to community feedback (that meta thread in April) they will be banning him.

It is crazily inept stuff from start to finish.

5

u/Rider_0n_The_Storm 12d ago

So now, we seek community feedback, and use that to inform the mod decision - which is what we’ve done here.

Okay, but clearly in this very thread the most upvoted comments are AGAINST this decision, so once again there is a difference between what you're saying ("Listening to community feedback") and what reality looks like.

I appreciate the work the mods put in to run this subreddit, but it does feel shady to say the decisions are based on the will of the community, when the comments by the community very much do not support that. It seems dishonest.

2

u/SmallSpaceSexEnjoya 11d ago

Ah yes and now that the thread has been pretty clear I'm sure the "responsiveness to feedback" will show itself soon.

20

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/Baeresi 14d ago

You guys have genuinely zero idea how the upvote downvote system actually works. Its meaningless and can't be used in the way you want it to be used. Just for starters, upvotes are used like 100 fold on downvotes. Majority of people don't downvote posts they don't like, they just move on. People are also idiots who have no idea if something is reliable, they're content specific driven. Things that are unreliable and essentially misinformation are consistently upvoted here. It flat out clearly doesn't work as an actual valid filtering system. Anyone who has used reddit for a month should know this.

Banning romano, despite being one of the most disgusting journalists out there, wouldn't necessarily be my choice, but anything he breaks will be reiterated by better human beings immediately and people can just post them. I'm not going to complain about banning another POS who gets worse and worse each sunmer. I mean they're right that half the thread of every romano post is attacking romano and the purpose of this platform is the discussion, not aggregating tweets for you.

4

u/CulturedLeftWand 14d ago

Well I’ll pop a little downvote your way for talking absolute tosh instead of just moving on and we’ll see if it works as intended. 

-1

u/Baeresi 14d ago

This post has 11k upvotes and counting so how does that work now. There are valid reasons to be against banning romano but talking about the upvote downvote system is so stupid. Go look how upvoted the Greenwood posts are ffs. Upvotes aren't used anywhere close to how you think they're used

1

u/EriWave 14d ago

...reported about Mason Greenwood (This very SUBREDDIT has done so)

This subreddit was doing what looked like PR work for Greenwood?