BBC College of Journalism Blog - A vigorous and robust discussion about journalism from every perspective.

Football fans can scarcely have failed to notice the anaemic newspaper coverage of matches and lack of photographs from this season's early football league games.

It's not that there's been a sudden loss of interest - far from it. What's been hampering the coverage is a lack of access. A dispute is still raging at the time of writing between the professional leagues and the collective might of the newswire, photography agencies and most of the daily papers over what exactly they're allowed to report and how.

The existing agreement between clubs and organs has expired. It was set up six years ago and is no longer fit for purpose, conceived as it was in the days before Twitter, TwitPics, live text, streaming, and much of the rest of the social media landscape we now take for granted.

Everyone supports the idea that the agreement needs to be redrafted. The problem is they disagree over how far the freedoms to report should now be extended.

It won't be much of a surprise to know that money is at the root of this problem. Not in terms of any fees paid by the agencies and papers. Somewhat strangely in these times of billion-pound rights deals, they get their football for free.

Instead, it's the impact that their Twitter feeds and interactive forums might have on the ability of the clubs to profit, literally, from their own websites and the value of sponsorship deals based around a live feed offer. The agencies and papers want to get in and get their content out to an audience with a healthy appetite. The problem for the clubs will come if they can't keep pace and find the public no longer willing to pay a premium for a service they get for nothing elsewhere.

The parties have been negotiating for months without success, but the imminent commencement of another Premier League season is focusing minds.

There have been a few slightly indignant articles in the papers explaining why there aren't any decent match reports or pictures because their staff are locked out of grounds. It sounds a bit dramatic, but essentially it's accurate. Retaliation has come in the form of refusal to name-check and feature the headline sponsors which benefit hugely from the profile the papers and websites give them visually and in written form.

All a bit silly, but when cash and principles are jointly at stake then reason can sometimes take a back seat. As is blindingly obvious, both parties need each other. Symbiosis defined.

Of course, it will all be sorted out eventually, and my bet is it will be sooner rather than later. But it does all serve as a reminder as to just how fast social media is changing the landscape and challenging the thinking of the rights-holders in sport.