Bringing The Game Into Disrepute

Football like all other sports illicit strong emotions in those who love and follow it. Any two people who see the same incident can interpret it in different ways, that can be an intentional or subconscious thing. We have interviews with the managers of each team and a few key players shortly after the match is finished who are still pulsing with adrenalin and under rules stating that they can't comment of some things like criticising the referee, but why does that not apply to the pundits?

If a player or manager criticises the referee, they are often fined or sanctioned for "bringing the game into disrepute". Surely the idea is that the players or managers are influential to their fans, and through the media they spread those words or opinions, which undermines the referee. If these remarks are made away from an interview situation, do they still have the same effect? Of course not, an interview is being recorded and may be edited and rebroadcast as well as potentially being broadcast live.

It's like the rules governing players for inciting crowd trouble. Last year Adebayor was rightly criticised and punished for running the whole length of the pitch to celebrate a goal in front of the Arsenal fans, who he had history with, taunting them, inciting them. It's about how the incident is amplified and the ripple effect it can have.

Sports fans watch and listen to TV and radio shows. They hear the words of players and managers as well as pundits, commentators and summarisers, and in some cases the real fans have some way of contributing their views into the mix. While the players and managers have to watch what they say, the pundits don't.

Some pundits are more opinionated than others, and some seem to be on a crusade. The one that triggered this post is Alan Green from 5Live who seems hell bent on destroying Mark Clattenburg, the referee who awarded Nani's goal against Spurs yesterday. Several times during the Liverpool / Bolton commentary he's had a dig at it, lead the charge for the phone in to be all about that on multiple occasions, and said he's desperate to be given the excuse to dive into that subject to blast the ref. This is a BBC station, he is a BBC employee. One of the excuses the BBC give for the extortion racket known as the TV licence, is that they give an unbiased view of the events.

Aan Green is by no means the only one, nor is this incident any better or worse than others. Pundits are very quick at destroying players, managers and referees too. Alan does seem to have an eagle eye for excuses to destroy the fans too, by mocking them for coming back late at half time etc. I don't know if he has some complex that he feels the need to put others down to raise his own opinion of himself.

Stepping aside from Alan Green, the point is that the media are the link between the players or managers words and the fans ears. It's the media who give those words the impact in terms of people who hear it and potentially trigger ripple effects. Those words are framed by the discussions held by the pundits, commentators and summarisers. They have just as much impact, if not more on the fans. The fans watch the game, while the pundits frame what they saw in what they choose to highlight and their views on those incidents.

So why are these people not under the same restrictions on keeping their opinions professional and respectful, even if they disagree. You can't apply the same to the fans, but then any individual fan only has a few minutes on a show to make a quick point before the host moves onto another caller. Pundits are the voice you hear framing the game for the length of the match.