Match ⚽ of the Day 

                    
Oh sorry. Am I meant to be sad about kickie-ball on TV?

I'm sure there are other ex-footballers who could quite easily provide an erudite commentary on the goings on, without necessarily causing a ruckus in their off-air antics.
   

Quote                   
Oh sorry. Am I meant to be sad about kickie-ball on TV?

I'm sure there are other ex-footballers who could quite easily provide an erudite commentary on the goings on, without necessarily causing a ruckus in their off-air antics.
 

But why should his 'off-air antics' be an issue? He is a free lance, his comments did not use inflammatory language, and he expressed a perfectly respectable opinion which, while not shared by all, would be shared by many. There was no reason why anyone should have assumed this was the opinion of the BBC. This is a perfect example of a non story. "Independent journalist voices his own  opinion in moderate language on social media".

Sorry, I agree that he has a right to his opinions and to express them.

He does seem to have upset some people and apparently that's a bad thing. If he said the same sort of thing whilst on MOTD then he'd be fair game, and I would also ask if there would be any support for him if he had tweeted "keep them out", "JK Rowling is right", "all lives matter" or whatever other viewpoint you find most distasteful.   

Bottom line: I don't really care.

My point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller.   

QuoteSorry, I agree that he has a right to his opinions and to express them.

He does seem to have upset some people and apparently that's a bad thing. If he said the same sort of thing whilst on MOTD then he'd be fair game, and I would also ask if there would be any support for him if he had tweeted "keep them out", "JK Rowling is right", "all lives matter" or whatever other viewpoint you find most distasteful. 

Bottom line: I don't really care.

My point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller. 

                

QuoteBut why should his 'off-air antics' be an issue? He is a free lance, his comments did not use inflammatory language, and he expressed a perfectly respectable opinion which, while not shared by all, would be shared by many. There was no reason why anyone should have assumed this was the opinion of the BBC. This is a perfect example of a non story. "Independent journalist voices his own  opinion in moderate language on social media".

I was hoping to see his on-air antics when Spurs actually win some silverware (Lineker being a Spurs player of legendry status) but as we'll now have to wait a few more months (in reality probably many more years going on Spurs current form  ) for that to potentially happen I guess we won't get to see his reaction on TV (as a MOTD pundit anyway).

I bought a bag of Walker's crisps in solidarity

I note that there wasn't a similar outrage when he commented negatively on Corbyn;  so I can only think this outrage  is very convenient.

The thing about Lineker is that he's a serial offender.  But, in my opinion, there are two issues with this latest example.  The first is the generality of the guidelines the BBC imposes on its celebrities like Lineker.  He signed a five-year contract in 2020 in which, apparently, he agreed to abide by the BBC's 'impartiality' guidelines.  If he's was not happy with his employer's conditions, then he should not have signed the contract and found work somewhere else.  The second one is the comparison to Nazi Germany in the 1930.  There is, absolutely, no comparison in word or deed, between the present British government's policy on illegal immigration, and Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, Gypsies and others.  So, in that respect he was plain wrong and bound to give offence, and pretty dull to make such an analogy. 
I can't really comment on his qualifications as a kick-ball commentator as I have no interest in the game, but it seems to me, that he gets paid far, far, too much and his salary might be better spent elsewhere until the licence-fee is abolished and the BBC has to make its own way without support from what is, in effect, another tax.  That, of course, is another argument.   

I think Gary was pretty spot on in what he said myself and I think the BBC have completely shot themselves in the foot with the furore that this has created.  His comparison to 1930's German language when it comes to the dehumanisation and 'othering' of immigrants is clear to see, so much so that a Holocaust survivor said exactly the same thing to Braverman only a couple of months ago.  She of course ignored it and carried on.

The thing that is most striking here is the hypocrisy of the BBC in their application of their rules in this instance.  Why does Lineker get pulled from his presenting role on a football programme, but people like Alan Sugar and Jeremy Clarkson were able to say anything they liked whilst in equivalent 'freelancer' positions for the Beeb.  Why was Andrew Neil allowed to tweet whatever he liked even while a presenter on a BBC political show?  This was supposedly allowed at the time because he was speaking in his alternate role as chairman of the Spectator. 

The only discernible difference is that those people were speaking in favour of government policy and Lineker is speaking out against it.  And when you look at the people in charge of the BBC you can clearly see why this might be a problem for them.  Unfortunately it's completely backfired on them and they were unprepared for this outcome.

If Lineker's statement was so wrong, why did every other football presenter, pundit and commentator join him in solidarity?  Why did multiple football clubs put out statements that their players would not participate in post-match interviews for the BBC?  And why hasn't Lineker seen any of this sponsors or affiliates drop him, as you'd expect if he had done something so controversial?

QuoteMy point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller. 

Just to reply to this point, unfortunately the reality there is that he's underpaid in terms of the market value of what he does.  He could go to any other mainstream sports broadcaster and double/triple his salary overnight.  That isn't to say that anyone deserves to earn that much, but just that in perspective to other media outlets he's not paid a lot.  He does some work for other channels (BT Sport mainly) and I'd expect him to be getting a lot more per appearance there.

QuoteThe thing that is most striking here is the hypocrisy of the BBC in their application of their rules in this instance.  Why does Lineker get pulled from his presenting role on a football programme, but people like Alan Sugar and Jeremy Clarkson were able to say anything they liked whilst in equivalent 'freelancer' positions for the Beeb.  Why was Andrew Neil allowed to tweet whatever he liked even while a presenter on a BBC political show?  This was supposedly allowed at the time because he was speaking in his alternate role as chairman of the Spectator. 

This was the BBC response to a complaint about Andrew Neil's impartiality

I am not a fan of team sports so don't have an axe to grind. However, if football is"kick ball" wouldn't rugby be hand ball?

QuoteThe second one is the comparison to Nazi Germany in the 1930.  There is, absolutely, no comparison in word or deed, between the present British government's policy on illegal immigration, and Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, Gypsies and others.  So, in that respect he was plain wrong and bound to give offence, and pretty dull to make such an analogy.

He would have been dull if he had. But he didn't make that analogy at all.

He said the language used was similar to that being used in Germany in the 1930s, not the treatment of Jews and Gypsies and the mentally ill and gay people and communists and Slavs etc etc.

His point of course being that careless acceptance of pejorative language about 'the other' has in the past led to actions that many (perhaps most?) of those endorsing that language by indifference would not have intended to flow from their failure to challenge it when it first arose.

As for 'he can be replaced' - well of course he can be, but the point is surely not whether he can be, but whether in a democracy he should be sacked by a supposedly independent state broadcaster apparently in hock to one political party, for posting his views off air in a personal capacity.

Hi

For what it's worth I think Leon's summary of the Gary Lineker situation above is, like Gary Lineker's original tweet, also 'spot on'.

Cheers Paul