The 200% Podcast 13: FOUL!
The Power Of Discretion And Why Guidelines Are… King
Steven Gerrard, The Media & Liverpool’s Structural Issues
The Twohundredpercent Podcast LIVE!
Where, Exactly, Do Queens Park Rangers Go From Here?
End Of Season Ennui
The 200% Podcast 12 – General Election Special
Saturday Night On Channel Five For The Football League
The Decline & Fall Of Leyton Orient
Rape, Disrespect & Fury: The Oyston Family & Blackpool FC
Is It Time For A New Football Club For Newcastle?
Tranmere Rovers & Cheltenham Town Stare Into The Abyss
Viewers of the BBC’s flagship football programme Match Of The Day were treated to a somewhat extraordinary sight last weekend when presenter Gary Lineker launched into a somewhat bizarre impersonation of the Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger complaining about refereeing decisions going against his team during their match earlier that day against Stoke City. Whilst this behaviour could arguably be described as offensive and certainly wasn’t funny, it also shone a light on the slow, drawn-out decay arguably British football’s most venerable television institution.
Match Of The Day will be fifty years old in two years time, and we can reasonably certain that this is a birthday that we will hear a considerable amount about. There is little that the BBC seems to enjoy more than eulogising its own heritage, and there can be little questioning its historical importance in the development of the televising of football in this country. It was the first regular, nationally broadcast programme dedicated to the national game (after a brief sojourn at its inception when it was shown only to viewers in the London region in BBC2) and it has been, barring a couple of brief intermissions when rights to broadcast matches were, somewhat inconveniently, lost to other companies, a mainstay of the winter schedules since then.
For many, many years the format remained largely unchanged. There would be extended highlights of one match until 1969 (and two matches thereafter), brief interviews with those that had been involved in the featured matches, a brief round-up of the news of the day, a look at the league tables and the football pools information. And that was it. There was never any need for greater embellishment, the assumption on the part of the producers presumably being that people tuning into a television programme about football would be sufficently entertained by, well, watching the highlights of a couple of that day’s matches and a brief round-up of what had happened elsewhere.
Over time, however, the programme came to evolve. Manchester United played Tottenham Hotspur in the first live league match to be shown on the BBC in December 1983 and for four years from the start of the 1988/89 season an exclusive contract between the Football League and ITV meant that the programmes was limited to more sporadic matches covering only the FA Cup. Since the coming of the Premier League in 1992, however, Match Of The Day has returned to being a regular fixture in the schedules apart from the three seasons between 2001 and 2004, when ITV won the rights to the highlights package made available by the Premier League.
Since 1992, though, Match Of The Day has changed. Pundits – exclusively former players – have been incorporated from live matches, while from the very first episode of the revamped show all of that day’s goals have been, and this has morphed into brief highlights of every game. At the other end of the spectrum, however, extended highlights now seem to be a thing of the past, with the time formerly given over to the featured matches now being spent with the programme’s regular panel of pundits, while the programme has also spawned offspring in the form of Match Of The Day 2, which covers matches played on the increasingly important Sunday schedules.
As it approaches its fiftieth birthday, though, the old warhorse is showing signs of middle-age spread. The studio may be glitzier than ever, but underneath this facade of youthfulness the grim truth of the matter is that it is on danger of becoming the one thing that no television programme can afford to be any more: irrelevant. In the multimedia age, anybody with an ounce of nous knows how to access a feed of any of that afternoons matches on the internet. Those looking to put their feet up and watch a match of an evening can tune into Sky’s Football First of an evening, whilst those after rambunctious debate have the opinion of Goals On Sunday the following day. The biggest single criticism that can now be levelled at Match Of The Day is that it is difficult to say what purpose it serves.
There is no great pleasure to be taken in saying this. After all, free-to-air television needs a strong Match Of The Day, if only to serve as some sort of counterbalance to the relentless march of pay TV in English football. The BBC has been shedding its sports coverage left, right and centre over the last few years, enfeebled by a combination of the bulging wallets of its commercial competitors and, more recently, cuts forced upon it by a government that seems to be ideologically opposed to the very concept of a national broadcaster. This means that the corporation has to get its coverage of the remaining slivers of sports rights that it does still hold right, and the unfortunate truth of the matter is that the 2012 vintage of Match Of The Day does little to fill the license fee payer with much confidence that it should be entrusted with more money to spend on expanding this portfolio. Whether we like it or not, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the current incarnation of Match Of The Day is indicative of what the BBC would produce if it did have more sports rights, then perhaps it is for the best that its stock is dwindling.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this decline is that it shouldn’t be overly difficult to set it right. Perhaps the BBC has little or no idea of the extent to which its over-reliance on the lack of insight of its panel of ex-pros, with their stultifying mateyness and jokes that fall as flat as ten day old lemonade, debases any authoritativeness that the programme may have held or that most people tune into it to watch the football rather than four middle-aged men sitting on a sofa and cracking jokes that Little & Large would reject as being beyond the pale whilst offering a level of insight that could alternatively (and more cheaply) be sourced by hanging around a town centre pub on match days with a microphone and a cassette player. If the BBC has the common sense to return Match Of The Day to the reason why viewers tune in to start with – the football itself – then there is a chance that its reputation can be revived. Until it does this, though, it will continue to resemble a middle-aged man in a night club at two o’clock in the morning – slightly ridiculous looking and looking considerable more tired than it thinks it does.
You can follow Twohundredpercent on Twitter by clicking here.
Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.
Good thoughts, added to which the commentary is so obviously added afterwards giving the programme even greater opportunities to be condescending to its audience by pretending to anticipate goals. The only way to watch MOTD these days is to record it, skip the studio bits and try not to think about the “experts” being driven home afterwards at great expense to us all.
The commentary is definitely not added afterwards.
You can not have someone sitting there as expert but then behavibg as spurs fan. What GL did about Wenger is very silly & he needs to apologize on MOTD for that.
Can’t disagree with anything here. I haven’t watched a whole episode for quite some time due to what it has become. If they simply showed highlights – and longer ones at that – I would happily resume regular viewing. Instead it is filled with, at best, dull and obvious punditry and at worst, a lack of understanding or knowledge from it’s highly paid panel.
Here’s a suggestion – what with all the cuts the BBC is having to make, why don’t they get rid of these useless pundits and just show the highlights or just employ some people who actually know what they’re talking about. People like Jonathan Wilson and Simon Kuper spring to mind. I’m sure they’d be a lot cheaper than Shearer et al.
While we’re on the topic of Shearer, the man is just awful. I remember an article a while back discussing his response to being asked about Newcastle’s new signing, Ben Arfa. His reply – “Nobody knows anything about him.” Millions well spent by the BBC.
I think that these guys have the idea that they are paid for their expertise and that’s that. They come on and give their opinion because that’s all that’s expected or all they assume they have to do. They clearly do no research, nor can they explain the finer points very well and somewhere along the line this is seen as acceptable.
Anyway, you’ve got me going with this article. I really do think Match of The Day is tired and needs refreshing because it’s so bad these days and like you say, it’s becoming irrelevant.
I’ve don’t have Sky so can’t compare, but I agree the MOTD pundits could probably do with a clear-out; Mark Lawrenson especially. Lee Dixon is probably the only one worth keeping.
I think I read somewhere that the BBC were restricted in how long the highlights could be for each match. It seems quite noticeable on days when there are maybe only 2 or 3 matches, but as they can’t show extended highlights, they need more analysis/punditry to pad out the show.
Couldn’t agree more. The lack of insight is breathtaking! Aside from anything else it makes you wonder who the BBC thinks the audience for MOTD is…
The MOTD approach has increasingly crept into (and ruined) the live broadcasts of summer tournaments, although we at least sometimes get better pundits then (O’ Neill, etc)
Don’t get me started on the talentless Irish idiot and vacuous self-styled ‘Sav’…
I wish they would approach MOTD as if its audience, like me, is voraciously interested in football, but not at all in footballers. That’d be a start at least…
It has all been said but I just want to add my two penneth about Savage. Who in the BBC actually thinks this ex headless chicken of a footballer has anything of interest to say? Garth Crooks, Shearer, Lawrenson and Savage – get rid of them all. I fear we’ll have the ubiquitous, but irrelevant Gabby Logan replacing Lineker next. Awful
(Steve Claridge on the Football League programme is just as bad…seems to be fixated with formations, and has little in depth knowledge of the game). It could be worse though….Jim Beglin!
Excellent piece. Auntie Beeb should get back to showing the football, employ a presenter to introduce and link, and send the so-called pundits packing. Those like me who don’t have Sky or any other ‘pay TV’ channels and are, as has been said elsewhere, interested in football but not in footballers deserve better than the BBC is giving us.
Wholeheartedly agree with all that has been said so far. MOTD has became an anachronism, a relic of a time when a minority had access to Sky and you had to go to the pub to watch a game live.
The punditry is woeful apart from the odd flash from Dixon. I have lost count of the amount of times that a pundit says “I don’t know Gary” in response to a question. The pundits have access to every camera angle under the sun and like the rest of us the Internet and so should have no excuse for being in the dark about a player or system.
Two things I would add
1. Many football fans want to see the goals from the games rather than the endless chat about parts of the game that had no bearing on the result. ESPN Goals provides this and so why would you watch MOTD if this service is increasingly available?
2. On the issue of the licence fee and value for money. If the people want a better show than expect to pay an inflated licence fee. so that the BBC can compete with satellite broadcasters. If not then for me it is better to let Sky have a monopoly and provide in depth, high quality coverage. And as for those fans without Sky, then tough. It isn’t like Sky isn’t widely used around the country as pretty much every council house I look out has a dish.
Much needed post!
Nice article. And brilliant use of the word ‘enfeebled’!
Agree with all that’s been said above…but will anyone from the BBC take note? I doubt it.