Main Edition
US
FR
November 12, 2024 - 6:00pm
Gary Lineker has announced that he is leaving Match of the Day, and so the country has divided into its usual tribes. Good riddance, woke warrior, says one; another dark day for broadcasting, says the other. Both sides have a point: he was woke, and he was good at his job. Yet each misses the wider significance of Lineker’s departure.
For me and many others, football acts as a form of theatrical escapism that is both an entertainment and a social glue, creating what we might now call a “safe space” to bond with people across the usual social barriers. It has no purpose, as Roger Scruton once remarked of friendship, but is part of what makes life meaningful, weaving its way into our experience of home.
For that reason, I’d rather not have to form any kind of opinion about the presenter of Match of the Day, happy to bathe contentedly in my ignorance of his views about the war in Gaza or how to tackle climate change. More than that, though, I think it will be to the great detriment of our national life if football becomes infected by politics, robbing us of the joy many take from pottering happily with friends, family and strangers in the meaningless fields of our national sport.
To many, of course, this is part of the reason Des Lynam will always be the Platonic ideal of a football presenter: a civilised man’s man who also had an eye for the ladies, football’s Roger Moore. As it happens, I will always hold a candle for Channel 4’s James Richardson as the real heir to Lynam: the national host we never had, who now spends much of his time podcasting — which itself is rather telling.
Still, Lineker was a decent Match of the Day replacement for Lynam in 1999: smart, eloquent and gently amusing, a clean-cut representative for a new era of football. The real problem today is that Lineker has seamlessly transitioned into the new world in which we now live: a world of hyper-politicisation and opinion, dominated by social media and podcasting. Lynam faded nostalgically into our national memory as a man from an older age. Lineker, in contrast, has successfully morphed with the times.
Today, we can look back on the early 2000s as the era of prime Premier League drama, with Lineker handed the job of being its bard. In politics, his equivalent was David Dimbleby, who presided over the most important political events with a calm, apolitical grandeur that has now been lost. “At 20 minutes to 5, we can now say the decision taken in 1975 by this country to join the common market has been reversed by this referendum to leave the EU,” Dimbleby declared in 2016, capturing the historic nature of the vote. Comparing this with the BBC’s last election coverage is utterly dispiriting, as is the fact that he was replaced by Huw Edwards.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe tragedy of Lineker is that he is reluctant to stand up for fairness in women’s football, even though his voice would be game changing.
Many women, including Martine Navratilova and Sharron Davies have asked him why the FA are permitting over 70 males to play in women’s football, with women being excluded and injured.
Last week a 17 year old autistic girl was reduced to tears at a disciplinary hearing and given a 6 match ban. Why? For asking if a large player with a beard was a man.
Women who speak up get silenced. Lineker could champion fairness for the women’s game but chooses not to.
Has Gary Lineker ever done a deed that wasn’t in his own interest? I can’t recall any.
No one has told Lineker what to think about that yet. When they do, he’ll pipe up.
The money paid to Lineker by the BBC over decades is disgusting.
A woke knee-bender of note whose supreme arrogance predisposed him to abuse his media power to lecture the general public about his political views. And the BBC failed to kick him out for so doing.
Linekar was, and is unfortunately an exemplar of BBC output. His political pronouncements chime perfectly with BBC agenda. The other day I watched Sky at Night (of all programmes) and after a piece about men walking on the Moon, the producers felt obliged to shoe horn in a short lecture to remind us of the importance of women as the manufacturers of their boots. Even something as clunky as this is de rigueur on BBC output now. Nobody need be in any doubt which tribe licence fee payers money goes to.
…I’d suggest you are rather exaggerating the Neutrality of the BBC on Brexit Night. Dimbleby spoke the right words hours after the outcome became so apparent he could not go on ignoring it…and looked as though he was about to throw up with disgust at having to do so. Most of the crew behind him in the studio looked equally ill and despairing…and in the weeks afterwards nobody in the BBC adequately concealed their loathing and contempt for the Brexiteers.
They should have been shut down then. But approaching a decade later, the entire editorial and production staff and absolutely every BBC “comic”, vox pop, and audience reflect the loser’s view on that event…and every event that followed.
They are effectively defrauding more than fifty percent of the population of the License Fee…and acting as the propaganda arm of the Metropolitan Class. I doubt if anyone there (apart from cleaners and porters) votes anything but Labour, Green or Lib Dem…most of them can barely conceal their anti-Semitism…nor their visceral loathing for this Country, it’s History, Traditions and Culture, and most of the people who live here.
Mrs Badenoch should explore this issue quickly from first principles…which will lead inevitably to her drawing up a plan to close it down. It will increase her lead over Twotier-Freegear by five points…
Pity I can’t up vote 20 times.
Smugness. I think that’s what offends me with Linneker. And he’s not alone. Neville. Carragher. Even Wright is going the same way.
I wonder if football in general is fit to burst. Pumped up on its own self importance.
Too much money. Too much wokery. Too much to say outside of football. Why footballers feel the need to enlighten us with their thoughts on Gaza/environment/gender etc is baffling.
I still can’t forgive them for taking the knee – and the division it provoked.
For me it was the phoney indignation of a World Cup in Qatar while of course flying out to cover it. And he wasn’t alone in that. Other pundits were equally hypocritical.
Either you mean what you say. Or you don’t. If you have principles then there are times when those principles will incur a cost on you.
“… if football becomes infected by politics …”
“The significance of Lineker’s departure is that we are losing this common land where we can all wander free of politics”
Wake up, Tom. Football has been political (generally small “p”, but all too often large “P”) at least since the dawn of professional clubs in the late 19th Century.
And Lineker has politicised Match of the Day still further, though his arrogance, hubris and smugplacency. I for one won’t miss him.
I was massively into football for my whole life until they started taking the knee during Covid. Then I stopped watching it and haven’t looked back – I don’t follow at all and have no idea when my ‘team’ is even playing. Unimaginable only a few year ago.
I promise anyone who does the same, you are missing zero. Like porn, you realise what a cheap thrill is being served up to extract as much attention and money out of you as possible. But, unlike porn, it can be used wisely, with family only. My advice: give up watching it on your own but don’t be puritanical, enjoy games with family when you get the chance.
Try following a local non-league team and find the true meaning of football.
TMcT’s articles go from strength to strength. What he describes here in this short article reflects what he’s also becoming: someone who articulates our national characteristics and their changing nature in a way that’s not only rare (as with Lynam, Dimbleby) but without which we’d be so much the poorer.
At least, we have the examples he cites, and how others have subsequently varied from them. Once the generation familiar with those names has passed, how will our national character be even understood? Could it be that each step-change in technology will produce it’s own versions?
I’d like also to say something about the term “meaningful” as used in the article. Yes, sport has no inherent “meaning” – although it could be argued that a civilisation without it might find itself subject to more war-like or attritional means of expressing its youthful energies – but the way in which friendships, familial and social occasions are engendered through playing, attending or talking about sport confers huge significance and meaning to the lives of very many people.
It’s also been used as a way of engendering combative hostility, of course. The hooligans of the 70s/80s were an absolute scourge on the game of football and resulted in English clubs being banned from European competition for several years. Then, Lineker came to prominence both as a great goalscorer and urbane presenter before assuming that his position allowed him some greater insight into how our culture should develop.
The events of just last week in Amsterdam also show how a sporting event can cross over into the ‘real world’. Did Lineker condemn those attacking Israeli supporters? I don’t follow social media so he may have done, but if he didn’t, such an omission would be another stain on his record, and one that he’d have a right – perhaps even a duty – to speak out on since it concerned football.
His departure will mark the passing of an era, and i hope that at least through this article, future generations will have some inkling (should it be referenced) of what existed, and why, and what’s being lost.
Tom McTague articulated something I felt a couple of years before the GFC when I’d be walking around London and looking at this or that new fashion house, or fancy new restaurant ; that the UK economy wasn’t just primed for a fall, but rather that it was fake, not a real economy at all.
I tried to explain that sense at the time, to a few people, but no one understood, nor did they seem to have picked up on it.
So when they did an episode on the economy of the David Cameron era, I was stunned to hear McTague say to Helen Johnson, a year ago :
“There is something really, really fragile about the British economy, almost fake, you know? I think that whole economy, and the political consensus that is built on that economy, is fake.
It is not just that 2007 destroys it. It’s just that it was never real to begin with?
That’s what I kind of start to, really start to feel now.”
Been a fan of Tom McT ever since.
I am not a fan of someone who gets basic chronology wrong. If Tom McT thinks the great financial crisis broke in 2007 then he had better take some time to mug up on what actually happened, the key event being the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to collapse in late 2008. But then he shows no sign in quoting David Dimbleby in his article that he realises Dimbleby was guilty of (for him) a huge gaffe, given that the UK did not vote to join the Common Market in 1975, it had joined in 1973 and the choice in 1975 as in 2016 was to leave or remain.
Lineker will always be the goal poacher who failed to poach that simple far post header against Argentina in 1986 from the best cross ever delivered (by John Barnes).
footballers are not really regarded as great thinkers, maybe that’s unfair, but i see no evidence from Lineker to the contrary. He was lucky enough to find an organisation willing to pay him a lot of money, and how fortunate that his beliefs match exactly that organisation.
p.s. your Dimbleby quote is factually incorrect, 1975 was the referendum about remaining in Common Market. we joined in 1973.
why is the jug eared crisp salesman elevated to such a degree of importance-he’s a competent broadcaster on a pre recorded highlights show .Any number of alternatives could replace him with zero impact on the programmes popularity and the ability to say “and Guy Mowbray was there ” is hardly unique.Does anyone watch MOTD for his insight/comments.
MOTD is just another long standing programme that is trying to find its position in the new broadcasting landscape and irrespective of who the presenter is,it is likely to diminish in standing as alternative/ social media pick up the pace.
As for his non political views-personally i think he’s a virtue signalling,luxury belief elitest but I choose to filter him out along with many other wafle merchants.
The fact that his departure from the Bbc was front page news is simply staggering and depressing.
Gary & Tragedy?
The tragedy of Gary Lineker……he was born at all
The article says “he was good at his job”. But you could get someone who is equally good and pay them one tenth of Lineker’s salary. The BBC loves handing out masses of license payers’ hard-earned cash to the pampered wokerati.
Most people, the vast majority, are not remotely interested in football, though I am myself.
It gets publicity out of all proportion to its actual appeal, as demonstrated by the amount of people who attend matches regularly, ( maybe a million) or who regularly watch football on TV, (around 2m for Match of the Day, maybe 3m for live games on SKY). So around five per cent.
More obviously if England get to a semi final or final, but that’s different.
You’d think It was fifty.It is not Scruton’s glue of friendship.
As for Lineker, he is a competent presenter, who has gone on too long, as the obsession with banal punditry from his mates shows us. His podcast has been built on the back of this exposure.
Elsewhere he is merely a badly informed twitter warrior, safe behind a screen . No one can put his half baked theories to the sword there
I don’t like him now, but Gary Lineker will always be bound up with memories of my football-mad mum (a die-hard Derby County fan) who had (and maybe still has) a huge crush on him.
I remember watching him play in the World Cup in 1990 when the England goalie was Peter Shilton. Looong time ago now!
On another note and I don’t know quite why (maybe it’s being from a footie-mad family), but I always got the football enthusiasm vibe off Tom McTague. He just seems like a guy that would seem underdressed without a football scarf.
The tragedy of Gary, that nobody mentions, is that ridiculous chin beard.
I share his inability to grow a proper beard on my cheeks (although, weirdly, I could manage a fine neck beard).
Why has he persisted with those straggly wisps for all this time? The only proper thing to do in that situation is to be clean shaven always.
Tragedy, my … eye.
I can’t think of one football commentator, who understands why all the top teams play the ball out from the back. That shows how removed they are from the current game. The same applies to those appearing on MOTD regularly and on Sky. MOTD needs a presenter who is not a professional player or coach and contemporary players and coaches to give the analysis.
A fine piece.
Wrong ! Robbie Savage and Chris Sutton’s double act is the best thing on Radio 5. Admittedly, against pretty weak opposition (Nicky Campbell excepted).
IMHO Savage and Sutton is just banal banter. The former especially – no better than the pub bore with a little nasty streak as well.
“More than that, though, I think it will be to the great detriment of our national life if football becomes infected by politics.”
Too late I’m afraid…….the Premier League was the destruction of football as we knew it. Destroyed by greedy football chairmen negotiating with TV companies and Alan Sugar was the SkyTV mastermind. U.K. govt allowed this to happen , it’s the “market” . Taking the knee, minutes silence for natural disasters (Ukraine, earthquakes) and perma big screen advertising, ticket surveillance. Fact is no one would miss fans but for maintaining the deceit for foreign TV sales. Gary Lineker? Great player, for club and country. Should’ve stuck to what he was good at and so should’ve Wright and Shearer. Game’s over.
Quite like this Author’s missives but this one was a bit too rose tinted. And ‘…losing this common land where we can all wander free of politics’ – whilst making living out of the growth in opinion?
As for football, it’s always had a political element – ‘the socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It’s the way I see football. It’s the way I see life’ – Shanks. I may be a Gooner but the best ever football quote.
You’re a ‘socialist’ yet you support the divide and rule politics of the parasitic plutocracy that Lineker represents?
How does that work?
Does everyone get an equal share of the rewards?
Don’t agree with everything Lineker has to say and he has obviously profited hugely out of Match of the Day, but I salute him for his stance on Palestine and the wholesale slaughter of Gazan children and women
What’s that got to do with football? (the point the writer’s making)
While football is ‘theatrical escapism’ it has also always been inherently political – see clubs like Celtic, Hibernian and Everton’s foundations as a result of mass Irish migration due to British policies in Ireland. The idea of keeping politics out of sport and in this case football is nonsensical, sport has always been used for political gain. In football the MSM applaud Ukrainian footballers for their stance against Russia then in the same breath berate those who stand up for Palestine.
Three clubs like Celtic, Hibernian and Everton cannot mean that football is inherently political. You stretch the point too far. Lineker is an overpaid celeb who feels that his political views are important, which they’re not. Who cares what he thinks? The man is using his notoriety to sell his football blog.
Football is extremely powerful because it cuts across the political divide. You can visit China and see people in ManU shirts. They aren’t saying that they support British politics.
Stand up for the Islamo-fascists who prepititaed this war, you obviously mean! You know, we actually had a ceasefire on the 6th of October 2023? Fascinating how words like “slaughter”, “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” etc are endlessly used against Israel, and in no other context. Despite the fact that the IDF, if for no better reason that the “eyes of the world”, are upon it, seek to protect civilian life as much as possible. Given the terrible things that happen in the world how is it that a third of all un resolutions criticizing military action are used against Israel? Does the Israeli government and IDF care about Israeli lives more than Palestinians? Of course they do like every other country in a similar situation. I want to know that you think that German citizens who died in their millions, should have been “slaughtered” by the Allies in the Second World War.
Isn’t there also a very basic point to make, which is that, even if one believes the highly untrustworthy figures released by Hamas, to describe the numbers of women and children killed as “wholesale slaughter” is simply inaccurate.