When Marcus Tavernier was subbed off in the 76th minute of Bournemouth’s 3–1 win over Southampton last October, he didn’t go straight to the bench. Instead, he walked toward a Sky Sports microphone, caught his breath, and gave what was—without fanfare—the Premier League’s first live mid-match player interview.
Next season, that sort of moment won’t be a one-off.
Beginning in the 2025–26 season, the Premier League will permit broadcasters to interview players immediately after they’ve been substituted. It’s part of a broader shift toward what league executives call “enhanced broadcast access.” Along with these sideline chats, Sky and TNT Sports will be allowed limited dressing-room footage, and camerapeople will be permitted on the pitch after goals to capture close-up celebration shots.
Each club is expected to grant access for at least two home matches per season. Not every match will feature these features. But the shift is deliberate. It reflects what Premier League chief executive Richard Masters called a move “to give broadcasters more for their money.” After all, this is a league that just signed a four-year domestic rights deal worth $8.4 billion.
Still, money only explains so much. Culture is harder to buy.
A tradition meets a broadcast experiment
Football is not baseball. Or cricket. Or the NBA, where mid-game coach interviews are the norm. There are no quarters, no innings, no dead time to break up the drama. That’s part of its global appeal—ninety minutes, continuous tension, few interruptions. Which is why the idea of sticking a microphone in front of a player who’s just come off the pitch has struck a nerve.
Players haven’t said much publicly yet. Most won’t until they’re told they’re on camera next August. But pundits and former pros are skeptical. “Players and coaches are there because they have to be,” one broadcaster noted recently. “You’re not going to get anything interesting out of them.”
That’s the fear—banal soundbites in place of real insight. The kind of response fans already expect after matches (“the lads gave 100%,” “we go again”) now injected into the match itself. Except this time, the player’s adrenaline hasn’t worn off. The match isn’t even over.
Managers have been even more cautious. Some reluctantly accepted the trial format, under strict rules: players must cool down first, questions must remain positive, and clubs will submit a list of willing interviewees in advance. Others were more blunt. Carlo Ancelotti called similar proposals in Spain “completely nonsense,” describing the locker room as “holy.”
And fans? The Premier League says they want more access. A vocal portion say they never asked for it.
On Twitter, Reddit, and fan forums, the reaction has been fierce. “It’s Americanizing football.” “The game’s gone.” “Don’t turn it into a reality show.” Even those open to the idea doubt it’ll produce much insight. “95% of the time,” one supporter wrote, “you’ll just get clichés and media-trained responses.”
That cynicism is familiar to American sports fans too. In the NFL and NBA, mid-game interviews often come off as box-ticking exercises—brief exchanges delivered with one eye on the clock and another on the game.
Still, not all feedback has been negative. Some global viewers, especially in the U.S. and Australia, are used to this kind of access and curious to see how it plays out in football’s most-watched league. There’s even precedent within the game: cricket has embraced in-match player interviews in its shorter formats. And dressing-room access already appears in post-match docuseries like All or Nothing, which fans adore.
But there’s a difference between a polished, behind-the-scenes documentary and a live, unfiltered mic in the middle of competition.
What’s actually changing?
Despite fears, this won’t be a broadcast free-for-all. Clubs still hold power. The new rules only apply to players who’ve been subbed off—not to coaches, active players, or halftime team talks. Interviews will be brief, reportedly no more than three short questions. And clubs will retain veto power over who’s available.
Some teams, like Bournemouth, have already taken part in pilot tests. Others, including Arsenal and Manchester City, have shown early openness—perhaps because they already control their own in-house media content. For now, access is opt-in. But as the lines between competition and content continue to blur, that may not last.
This is, in many ways, a trial balloon. If a few interviews go viral, if fans come around to seeing players in real-time emotional moments, it could become a standard feature. If not, it may fade away like other short-lived broadcast experiments.
What’s certain is that this is a shift in tone. Football, long resistant to over-commercialization, is inching toward the kind of product American sports have refined over decades: drama on the pitch, and spectacle around it.
How much is too much? That question might not be answered by a mic or a manager, but by the millions watching.
