Soccer Player Stumbled into a Photographer

Two days ago in Saudi Arabia, a soccer player stumbled into a photographer during a match. The photographer and the player are unharmed, but the lens was broken. The photographer is working for a news agency, which owns the gear. It seems the agency is asking the photographer to pay around $6700 for the lens! The photographer in his turn is asking the player or the soccer club to pay for the damages.

Click on the image to play animated gif.

manso said:

Two days ago in Saudi Arabia, a soccer player stumbled into a photographer during a match. The photographer and the player are unharmed, but the lens was broken. The photographer is working for a news agency, which owns the gear. It seems the agency is asking the photographer to pay around $6700 for the lens! The photographer in his turn is asking the player or the soccer club to pay for the damages.

Click on the image to play animated gif.

Click to expand...

Much depends on the terms and conditions of photographers being admitted to the stadium to cover a match from the perimeter of the pitch - official photographers (as this guy does) usually have to wear those numbered hi-viz jackets and are often allocated a set position on the perimeter. Accidents like this are not uncommon - players move very fast (relative to a static photographer), photographers often find it difficult to assess proximity when "absorbed" in a long lens and players are totally concentrating on the action/ball not a photographer.

I very much doubt the club or player would be liable for damage to the lens - although there was a similar incident in Europe earlier this year where the football player voluntarily, on an ex gratia basis, covered the cost of a photographer's broken equipment.

If the photographer is an employee of the news agency, the news agency almost certainly will have to pay to replace their own gear. If the photographer is freelance, depends on the contract he had with the news agency. Either way, the agency or a freelancer should have insurance to cover this type of occupational hazard.

Definitely an insurance job.

manso said:

It seems the agency is asking the photographer to pay around $6700 for the lens! The photographer in his turn is asking the player or the soccer club to pay for the damages.

Click to expand...

Which entity has the deepest pockets?

Definitely NOT the player's responsibility, and if the photographer is a freelance and signed a contact accepting liability in situations like that, he's an idiot and should have to pay for it. The reality is, the company who owns the gear needs to file this under "the cost of doing business" and move on. The only scenario in which I can see the photographer actually being liable is if he has a history of this sort of thing, in which case, really the parent company knew that and gave him the gear, so........

I think that to get an answer on who might have responsibility we need somebody who knows something about Saudi law. :-D

Definitely the photographer's fault. He needs to be in a position to get out of the way.

Using the bench and sitting like a spectator is lazy.

Lucky he is not photographing Rally cars.

They should have insurance to cover this else just setup a go fund me campaign.

Right now, we have too little to go on. We don't know if this has happened before in Saudi Arabia, we don't know what contract existed between the agency and the photographer. We don't know if the photographer is a Saudi citizen or whether the agency was based in Saudi Arabia. It is curious that the agency is not being held responsible in this scenario. The agency blames the photographer. The photographer, instead of reversing the blame, goes after the team and the player. This leads me to think that the agency has covered their xxx. In which case we are left with either the photographer or the team/player. I would be surprised if the player would have to pay. Wouldn't that result tend to make players less aggressive and harm the game? Photographers are likely not unionized. He would be the least powerful party. All guesswork which is always fun.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Happens all the time. I've had NBA players land on top of me during heated games. I've had to scamper like a rabid squirrel out of the way of football players as they charge over the sidelines. (Even HS players are HUGE--and armored!) A co-worker had a baseball snap the head off his tripod sending a big lens to the ground. Sports shooters need to stay kinda nimble--even though this guy was sitting waaaay back.

It happens. I was bumped several times back in the days when I covered American football but never took a direct hit. A friend was sent to the hospital with a concussion after a player hit her directly, took her several days to fully recover. Her monopod was broken but the 300mm f2.8 lens attached to it survived.

As to who is liable here, it could get messy. Depends on the law in that country and the contracts/agreements in place. I'd bet the press pass agreement limits the club's liability, and the photographer's agreement with his agency may cover them. So it may be on the photographer.

Back in the day my employer carried insurance on their own gear as well as anything the photographers furnished, and the photo agencies took responsibility for their stuff. But times have changed a lot in the last few years, so I wouldn't make any bets here.

The moral of the story, I guess, is read the fine print and carry insurance on anything you can't afford to replace.

Gato

From the looks of it, there were two photographers sitting down, both wearing vests that read "Photo". I am wondering if stadium regulations required them to sit in a specific location and not move around. I do agree that if he were standing, it would have much easier to step out of the way.

At least in American football it it very common for photographers to sit or kneel. A quick Google gives some examples:

felix from the suburbs said:

From the looks of it, there were two photographers sitting down, both wearing vests that read "Photo". I am wondering if stadium regulations required them to sit in a specific location and not move around. I do agree that if he were standing, it would have much easier to step out of the way.

Click to expand...

Those benches are a hazard as well. If there had been someone chasing that guy down, second person could have been impaled by the bench legs.

They might be allocated a section if the stadium was packed. But it looks to be a lot of room in that area. Photog with a big white was probably focusing on the crowd and not paying attention to the game. Instead of capturing the action he was the action.

trungtran said:

Definitely the photographer's fault. He needs to be in a position to get out of the way.

Click to expand...

How, by standing behind a brick wall?

I bet you are the type of guy who sues the city for damages after stepping in a pot hole and dropping your coffee.

But hey, that's what the double standard is for, right?

felix from the suburbs said:

From the looks of it, there were two photographers sitting down, both wearing vests that read "Photo". I am wondering if stadium regulations required them to sit in a specific location and not move around. I do agree that if he were standing, it would have much easier to step out of the way.

Click to expand...

You obviously have never been in this type of situation, nor can you imagine it.

These people have to hold their heavy cameras for hours. Not only is this difficult, but by looking at the field through a zoom lens and a viewfinder for that long you start to lose focus on distances and your surroundings. Of course he was sitting down, without a tripod at least i would have done the same.

There was no way that man could have realistically avoided any crash. The same applies for the footbal guy. His eyes were on the ball and he was moving fast, that's what they are paid to do.

rochester21 said:

trungtran said:

Definitely the photographer's fault. He needs to be in a position to get out of the way.

Click to expand...

How, by standing behind a brick wall?

Click to expand...

OK, I take that back. Definitely the soccer player's fault. He shouldn't be chasing a ball and losing control of his body.

Photographer was there first as well and shouldn't have to move for any circumstance.

Soccer player should pay for gear and lost images, suspended for the next game as well to make sure he doe not get in the way of other photographers.

The only "story" here is how much free publicity the news agency is getting.