A simple rule of PR is that you do not punish journalists for covering you unfavorably. It doesn’t stop the story, it doesn’t improve perception, it’s a cure that’s worse than the disease.
Manchester United just did exactly that.
Earlier this week, the club banned The Athletic from asking questions at a post match press conference for the women’s team. The decision came from an article that was seen internally as overly negative, particularly around Marc Skinner and the direction of the team. Instead of letting that criticism play out in the open, or trusting the manager to handle it, the club chose to remove the outlet entirely.
That is where this goes from questionable to a full PR mistake.
The Athletic is not a fringe publication (+5 million subs). It is one of the most widely read outlets in football, with a reputation built on detailed reporting and access. Banning them does not make their coverage disappear. It guarantees that the story evolves. Within hours, the narrative shifted. What started as questions about performances turned into a much bigger conversation about media control and transparency.
This was a major lack of foresight from the communications teams.
When you try to control coverage by restricting access, you send a message whether you mean to or not. And the message is rarely about confidence. It reads as uncomfortable and defensive. And once that perception sets in, future interactions with the media get viewed through that same lens.
United have been here before, just in different forms.
For years, the club has moved between two extremes. On one side, highly controlled messaging that says very little. On the other, moments where individuals speak more openly and create headlines the club then has to manage. Neither approach has created consistency, and that lack of consistency is where these mistakes tend to come from.
Because when there is no clear communication philosophy, decisions like this get made in isolation.
The reality is, the questions around Skinner did not go away. They were still asked. They will continue to be asked. That is how this works. Banning one outlet does not remove pressure, it just shifts attention onto the decision itself.
If anything, this situation highlights what effective sports communication actually looks like. You do not need to agree with the coverage. You do not even need to like it. But you do need to show that you are willing to engage with it. That is where credibility comes from.
Through this event, United are sending the opposite signal.
Do you think clubs should ever restrict media access like this, or does it always backfire?
