One question - just for some perspective... are you black/ ethnic minority , or just some leftie PC white guy forcing his opinions down everyone else's throat.
One word to shatter your argument, just one word........... ORTIS.
Never mind the incompetence - look at the skin colour !!!
My my, the unmitigated vitriol. Why so angry? And what has brought on this sudden interest in my skin colour, does it make a difference to how you'd reply?
Ridiculous thread. Where is the racism? If it is there, identify it. Where is it in this case?
I didn't say it was racism.
The OP suggests the all-white panels on the main show - when there are non-white pundits who are just as good - was counter-productive to combatting the undercurrents of racism in sections of the football community.
You don't just appoint someone based on the colour of someones skin, it's their suitability to the role required.
I've covered that point over and over - it's not about 'suitability for the role' it's about finding out someone's 'suitability for the role'. Not so-called 'positive discrimination' - but equal opportunities.
The OP suggests the all-white panels on the main show - when there are non-white pundits who are just as good - was counter-productive to combatting the undercurrents of racism in sections of the football community.
How good a pundit is is a matter of opinion. Saying there's good non white pundits who are as good as white pundits is a matter of opinion. That's pretty basic stuff quite honestly, but you don't seem to understand that (if you do, you're doing a bloody good job of hiding it).
Also I really don't get why you're saying it's so important to have non white pundits on the main show. If they had no non white pundits on ANY of their football related TV or radio related shows you MIGHT have a point, but they do. You're trying to find racism where there is none, and trying to make a mountain out of a completely non existant molehill.
It does NOT matter if there's a non white pundit on the main show. Why does it matter? Why is it so important to you that the main show, specifically the main show, has to have a non white pundit on it?
I too think that this is a complete non-issue. There are only two pundits on MOTD at any one time so to suggest that the fact that one of them isn't black is somehow racist is a bit strange.
Also I don't see a particular problem re: the lack of black managers. Not sure if it's still the case, but in mid 2011 there were two black managers amongst the 92 league clubs which is 2.2%. Given that approximately 2% of the population of Britain is black then this would seem fair representation.
I too think that this is a complete non-issue. There are only two pundits on MOTD at any one time so to suggest that the fact that one of them isn't black is somehow racist is a bit strange.
What, over the course of many years? And there have been 2 shows (3 including tonight) when the panel wasn't exclusively white? Yeah ok.
Also I don't see a particular problem re: the lack of black managers. Not sure if it's still the case, but in mid 2011 there were two black managers amongst the 92 league clubs which is 2.2%. Given that approximately 2% of the population of Britain is black then this would seem fair representation.
Except we would expect to see similar proportions of white/non-white managers as proportions of white/non-white players. Are only 2% of players non-white?
(And the reason I noticed in the first place was actually because of a Match of the Day 2 program last year where they had Dion and John Hartson, both of whom I thought were ace (only 1 of them is black by the way) - and since then I've been waiting to see them on the main show. And waiting. And waiting... then when they had Harry at the beginning of the season, then Owen, then Phil Neville... it just struck me how exclusively white the panel was usually. Since then there's been 1 appearance by Dublin (2 now) and another by Kompany... but it is an eye-wateringly small proportion, taken over just this season so far, never mind the many years I've been watching.)
What, over the course of many years? And there have been 2 shows (3 including tonight) when the panel wasn't exclusively white? Yeah ok.
Except we would expect to see similar proportions of white/non-white managers as proportions of white/non-white players. Are only 2% of players non-white?
Ok, I take your point that 25% of players are non-white but I don't see why the fact that the percentage of black players is vastly greater than the percentage of black people in the general population,it necessarily follows that the same should be true for football managers.
As for the panel, my point was that that the Saturday MOTD most frequently has Hanson and Shearer as pundits so there is limited opportunity for anyone else to feature. Sorry, I simply cannot see the logic of your argument. The BBC should choose the best pundits that its money can buy and their race should't matter any more than it matters whether they are ginger, bald, young, old etc.
In my experience, these types often actively seek out "racism" in order to award themselves brownie points and absolutely revel in being offended on other peoples behalf.
In the meantime, black people just get on with their lives...
As for the panel, my point was that that the Saturday MOTD most frequently has Hanson and Shearer as pundits so there is limited opportunity for anyone else to feature. Sorry, I simply cannot see the logic of your argument. The BBC should choose the best pundits that its money can buy and their race should't matter any more than it matters whether they are ginger, bald, young, old etc.
1) How do we know who the 'best' pundits are, if only white pundits are given the chance on the main show?
2) The 'best' pundits include non-white pundits - but they don't get to appear on the main show.
3) 'Best' is a matter of opinion, so a variety of pundits would be expected to appear - in which case why has there been a monopoly of white pundits?
4) The best candidates SHOULD get the job, no matter the colour of their skin - but are you saying that over the last however many years, the only 'best' candidates were white? Are you really, really going to stand by that?
I know that the argument is "the best candidate, no matter what colour their skin" - and I agree with the intention of the phrase. But it's far less simple than the phrase implies.
I'll refer back to the quotas for candidate lists for managerial positions in the NFL - it wasn't about saying anyone with less ability should be hired on the basis of skin colour. It was ensuring no-one was denied an opportunity to prove their ability, based on skin colour.
You do see the difference?
The phrase 'positive discrimination' is a weasel term. It already contains the implication that whoever gets a job has been the beneficiary of discrimination. But they haven't. They were the best candidate. But they got on the candidates list because there was a rule ensuring that candidate lists were drawn up fairly.
It isn't about 'positive discrimination' - it's about 'equal opportunity'.
a)anyone should get a job because of their skin colour OR
b)only black people can comment on racism
But when there are a number of potential pundits, and none are very much 'better' than any other... why always pick the white ones?
And the fact that white pundits can discuss racism, doesn't take away from the dodginess of the fact that it's almost always white pundits discussing racism.
(And I usually avoid final score - wait for the main show etc.)
This feels like a call for some kind of PC Quota to me.
So you're basically saying unless you're on the main show you can't determine how good pundits are. That's absolute tosh. You're basically saying it actually matters whether there's a non white pundit on the Saturday show or not. It doesn't. It just doesn't. You haven't given me (or anyone else I'd imagine) a reason to even consider agreeing with you. Do you know why? Because it does NOT, I repeat NOT matter if non white pundits appear on the Saturday show or not. If you can give us a new and genuine reason why it matters, then we might agree. I don't see that happening though, because it just doesn't matter. You really are making a mountain out of a completely non existant molehill. It's a complete non issue.
My my, the unmitigated vitriol. Why so angry? And what has brought on this sudden interest in my skin colour, does it make a difference to how you'd reply?
/Steve9214
I didn't say it was racism.
The OP suggests the all-white panels on the main show - when there are non-white pundits who are just as good - was counter-productive to combatting the undercurrents of racism in sections of the football community.
I've covered that point over and over - it's not about 'suitability for the role' it's about finding out someone's 'suitability for the role'. Not so-called 'positive discrimination' - but equal opportunities.
1. You still have not answered whether you are just some "up-himself Ali-G clone" preaching left wing tripe on a TV forum.
2. Finding "suitable people for the role" is what Lambeth Council (amongst others) did in their glorious loony-left days in the '80's, when they would recruit by quota regardless of ability or qualifications.
"We need a lawyer, but are lacking a one-legged Chinese lesbian" so they would recruit an unquaified one-legged Chinese lesbian, ignoring the fact that they were totally unqualified. Any Council officlals questioning the recruitment of such unqualified individuals would be accused of racism and duly sacked.
1) How do we know who the 'best' pundits are, if only white pundits are given the chance on the main show?
2) The 'best' pundits include non-white pundits - but they don't get to appear on the main show.
3) 'Best' is a matter of opinion, so a variety of pundits would be expected to appear - in which case why has there been a monopoly of white pundits?
4) The best candidates SHOULD get the job, no matter the colour of their skin - but are you saying that over the last however many years, the only 'best' candidates were white? Are you really, really going to stand by that?
I know that the argument is "the best candidate, no matter what colour their skin" - and I agree with the intention of the phrase. But it's far less simple than the phrase implies.
I'll refer back to the quotas for candidate lists for managerial positions in the NFL - it wasn't about saying anyone with less ability should be hired on the basis of skin colour. It was ensuring no-one was denied an opportunity to prove their ability, based on skin colour.
You do see the difference?
The phrase 'positive discrimination' is a weasel term. It already contains the implication that whoever gets a job has been the beneficiary of discrimination. But they haven't. They were the best candidate. But they got on the candidates list because there was a rule ensuring that candidate lists were drawn up fairly.
It isn't about 'positive discrimination' - it's about 'equal opportunity'.
I guess the question is, how do we know there isn't equal opportunity when it comes to football punditry?? It's the easiest thing in the world to point to the factual evidence - the overwhelming majority of football pundits on TV are white - and conclude that it must be because there isn't equal opportunity. In reality, there may be many legimitate, non-discriminatory, non-racists reasons.
For example, it would certainly help if we knew the proporation of white players to black players in our country. And not just today, but historically over the past 30 years, given that most pundits are retired players. Because IF we were looking at 70-80% white / and 20-30% black, then proportionately we'd expect there to be more white pundits than black. I don't know if anyone has figures to hand?
In terms of the criteria for TV punditry, it's hardly stringent, but I'd have thought some of the following would apply: -
a). Person is a well-known ex-footballer or manager
b). Person was a great player / very successful ex-footballer or manager
c). Person is reasonably articulate and can express opinions
Now can it not be possible, indeed probable, that when the BBC's production team look at what pundits they're going to use for MOTD, feel that the majority of available pundits who fit the above three points just happen to be white? And that skin colour isn't even an issue? Or am I being hopelessly naive?
It doesn't really matter whether you or I think Dion Dublin is great or Jason Roberts... If the BBC don't feel either score as high in their selection criteria as other existing and more used pundits, then surely we have to say, so be it!
What, over the course of many years? And there have been 2 shows (3 including tonight) when the panel wasn't exclusively white? Yeah ok.
Except we would expect to see similar proportions of white/non-white managers as proportions of white/non-white players. Are only 2% of players non-white?
(And the reason I noticed in the first place was actually because of a Match of the Day 2 program last year where they had Dion and John Hartson, both of whom I thought were ace (only 1 of them is black by the way) - and since then I've been waiting to see them on the main show. And waiting. And waiting... then when they had Harry at the beginning of the season, then Owen, then Phil Neville... it just struck me how exclusively white the panel was usually. Since then there's been 1 appearance by Dublin (2 now) and another by Kompany... but it is an eye-wateringly small proportion, taken over just this season so far, never mind the many years I've been watching.)
What is the percentage of white players that do not go into management or tv punditry?
So we had Dion Dublin who is probably the best of the new pundits they've had this year on MotD2... him and Hartson and Jason Roberts all good.
And Dion has had, what, 1 appearance on the main Saturday night show?
Usually it's 'party line' Hansen, Lawro whose personality disappeared with the tache, with Shearer or Keown who are at least interesting and don't go down cliche street every damn time.
Sorry, you lost me at this point.
Alan Shearer is one of the worst 'pundits' of all time, content to just tell you what you have just seen.
He adds no insight whatsoever and is aggressively dull.
1) How do we know who the 'best' pundits are, if only white pundits are given the chance on the main show?
2) The 'best' pundits include non-white pundits - but they don't get to appear on the main show.
3) 'Best' is a matter of opinion, so a variety of pundits would be expected to appear - in which case why has there been a monopoly of white pundits?
4) The best candidates SHOULD get the job, no matter the colour of their skin - but are you saying that over the last however many years, the only 'best' candidates were white? Are you really, really going to stand by that?
I know that the argument is "the best candidate, no matter what colour their skin" - and I agree with the intention of the phrase. But it's far less simple than the phrase implies.
I'll refer back to the quotas for candidate lists for managerial positions in the NFL - it wasn't about saying anyone with less ability should be hired on the basis of skin colour. It was ensuring no-one was denied an opportunity to prove their ability, based on skin colour.
You do see the difference?
The phrase 'positive discrimination' is a weasel term. It already contains the implication that whoever gets a job has been the beneficiary of discrimination. But they haven't. They were the best candidate. But they got on the candidates list because there was a rule ensuring that candidate lists were drawn up fairly.
It isn't about 'positive discrimination' - it's about 'equal opportunity'.
But that's the whole point. What you are advocating is not equal opportunity, it is giving someone more opportunity because of the colour of their skin. I don't doubt that the NFL policy has led to an increase in the number of non-white coaches. Does that make it right? That's a matter of opinion. That is positive discrimination and not equal opportunity as you are potentially interviewing someone because of the colour of their skin.
I still stand by my previous point. Why should someone be treated more favourably because of the colour of their skin any more than they should be because of any other aspect of their background or appearance etc?. Who is interviewed or not interviewed for a position should be purely based upon who best meets the requirements of the job, nothing else.
Historically the best pundit candidates may have been white or they may not have been. The whole point is that it shouldn't matter. I don't have insider knowledge of how the BBC chooses its pundits so I can't really comment further on this. However, pundits are on a contract like any other job. Are you saying that the BBC should get rid of one of the incumbents to make the pundit team more diverse? If I was removed from my job and replaced by someone simply becuase they represented a different ethnic group then I would have a case for unfair dismissal. How is football pundetary any different?
It is ensuring that people aren't denied an opportunity based on the colour of their skin. How would you suggest non-white candidates were ensured a fair chance to interview for jobs?
And the problem in the NFL was solved, not by a continuing policy of equal opportunity, but because the culture was changed by the short term implementation of equal opportunity.
As far as I can tell you're advocating that if chairmen wish to choose from an all-white shortlist, that is their perogative - and if they can find a convincing enough excuse there's nothing we can do. I contend it's ingrained, cultural racism and there is something we can (and should) do.
Who is interviewed or not interviewed for a position should be purely based upon who best meets the requirements of the job, nothing else.
How do you know who best meets the requirements - that in itself is a subjective term, one which is all too easily (and all too often) abused.
Are you suggesting that the disproportionately low number of black managers is because they aren't as good as white managers? I suggest the issue is one of cultural attitudes, ingrained amongst club owners and pevading the fabric of football - the fewer black managers are seen to be accepted, the fewer black candidate managers will apply for the jobs that are available, as the evidence they are less likely to be chosen is so strong.
On a related matter (although this is just something I noticed, a curiousity if you will) - count the proportion of white to non-white players featured in the opening credit sequence of MotD. Now there's where we start talking conspiracy!
I guess the question is, how do we know there isn't equal opportunity when it comes to football punditry?? It's the easiest thing in the world to point to the factual evidence - the overwhelming majority of football pundits on TV are white - and conclude that it must be because there isn't equal opportunity. In reality, there may be many legimitate, non-discriminatory, non-racists reasons.
It might well be that there's a dearth of non-white applicants.
As for the point that it might be the dearth of 'good' non-white pundits, it might be. But either punditry skills are subjective (so no-one can says whether one pundit is 'better' than another) in which case there's no reason why there shouldn't be a higher proportion of non-white pundits on the headline show...
...or there are objective things we can point to - vocabulary, articulateness, tactical knowledge, coaching qualifications - in which case a)you point them out and how we distinguish and b)you make the case that white pundits are 'better', objectively - which you'll have to, in order to explain why they monopolise the panel on the main show.
(and the main show's the issue because of the status and slot... or even just the viewing figures).
[as for the posters who want to make an issue of MY skin colour... you can make whatever issue you want to of my colour, as it only reflects on your own attitudes doesn't it.]
This is the stupidest thread I've every read in my life. With the title -
Match of the Day - where's your non-white pundits?
But the OP is not saying the BBC is racist. Oh no. Nor is the OP advocating positive racial discrimination, either. Oh no. The OP is just looking for a problem that isn't there. Though what that problem is, I have been unable to fathom.
Racism is society? - Yes. Racism on or by TV specifically or in general? - No.
As approximately half the UK population is female why are there no female pundits ? There are several good female football writers in the papers and I assume others who follow women's football. Surely that imbalance is of more concern than any ethnic one ?
I have to ask, why does the OP automatically assume the BBC aren't giving non-white pundits opportunities, could it not just be that the non-white pundits aren't avaliable as often as the white pundits, or don't want to do it as often as the white pundits do? Seems like a rather large leap from "there don't appear to be that many episodes with non-white pundits" to "the BBC don't give non-white pundits equal opportunities"...
As approximately half the UK population is female why are there no female pundits ? There are several good female football writers in the papers and I assume others who follow women's football. Surely that imbalance is of more concern than any ethnic one ?
Exactly, lots of women do follow and understand football and it would be great to see us represented both as pundits (Hope Powell especially step forward) and represented more within the game, I hope that I get to see a woman Premier League manager in years to come, however I feel that this idea and discussion may be better as a thread in the football section of this site.
Just have to say I totally agree with the FM who referred to Claridge as a half wit, I can certainly think of other names for him, but I don't want to be banned!
Comments
My my, the unmitigated vitriol. Why so angry? And what has brought on this sudden interest in my skin colour, does it make a difference to how you'd reply?
/Steve9214
I didn't say it was racism.
The OP suggests the all-white panels on the main show - when there are non-white pundits who are just as good - was counter-productive to combatting the undercurrents of racism in sections of the football community.
I've covered that point over and over - it's not about 'suitability for the role' it's about finding out someone's 'suitability for the role'. Not so-called 'positive discrimination' - but equal opportunities.
How good a pundit is is a matter of opinion. Saying there's good non white pundits who are as good as white pundits is a matter of opinion. That's pretty basic stuff quite honestly, but you don't seem to understand that (if you do, you're doing a bloody good job of hiding it).
Also I really don't get why you're saying it's so important to have non white pundits on the main show. If they had no non white pundits on ANY of their football related TV or radio related shows you MIGHT have a point, but they do. You're trying to find racism where there is none, and trying to make a mountain out of a completely non existant molehill.
It does NOT matter if there's a non white pundit on the main show. Why does it matter? Why is it so important to you that the main show, specifically the main show, has to have a non white pundit on it?
Also I don't see a particular problem re: the lack of black managers. Not sure if it's still the case, but in mid 2011 there were two black managers amongst the 92 league clubs which is 2.2%. Given that approximately 2% of the population of Britain is black then this would seem fair representation.
Ah but watch him say "oh but it's not a Saturday so it doesn't count" despite it being MOTD.
What, over the course of many years? And there have been 2 shows (3 including tonight) when the panel wasn't exclusively white? Yeah ok.
Except we would expect to see similar proportions of white/non-white managers as proportions of white/non-white players. Are only 2% of players non-white?
(And the reason I noticed in the first place was actually because of a Match of the Day 2 program last year where they had Dion and John Hartson, both of whom I thought were ace (only 1 of them is black by the way) - and since then I've been waiting to see them on the main show. And waiting. And waiting... then when they had Harry at the beginning of the season, then Owen, then Phil Neville... it just struck me how exclusively white the panel was usually. Since then there's been 1 appearance by Dublin (2 now) and another by Kompany... but it is an eye-wateringly small proportion, taken over just this season so far, never mind the many years I've been watching.)
As for the panel, my point was that that the Saturday MOTD most frequently has Hanson and Shearer as pundits so there is limited opportunity for anyone else to feature. Sorry, I simply cannot see the logic of your argument. The BBC should choose the best pundits that its money can buy and their race should't matter any more than it matters whether they are ginger, bald, young, old etc.
Exactly. I'd also bet that the OP is white.
In my experience, these types often actively seek out "racism" in order to award themselves brownie points and absolutely revel in being offended on other peoples behalf.
In the meantime, black people just get on with their lives...
1) How do we know who the 'best' pundits are, if only white pundits are given the chance on the main show?
2) The 'best' pundits include non-white pundits - but they don't get to appear on the main show.
3) 'Best' is a matter of opinion, so a variety of pundits would be expected to appear - in which case why has there been a monopoly of white pundits?
4) The best candidates SHOULD get the job, no matter the colour of their skin - but are you saying that over the last however many years, the only 'best' candidates were white? Are you really, really going to stand by that?
I know that the argument is "the best candidate, no matter what colour their skin" - and I agree with the intention of the phrase. But it's far less simple than the phrase implies.
I'll refer back to the quotas for candidate lists for managerial positions in the NFL - it wasn't about saying anyone with less ability should be hired on the basis of skin colour. It was ensuring no-one was denied an opportunity to prove their ability, based on skin colour.
You do see the difference?
The phrase 'positive discrimination' is a weasel term. It already contains the implication that whoever gets a job has been the beneficiary of discrimination. But they haven't. They were the best candidate. But they got on the candidates list because there was a rule ensuring that candidate lists were drawn up fairly.
It isn't about 'positive discrimination' - it's about 'equal opportunity'.
This feels like a call for some kind of PC Quota to me.
No deal.
English 81.5%
Scottish 9.5%
Irish 2.4%
Welsh 1.9%
West Indian, Asian and African 2%
So there is a clear demand for more Irish and Welsh pundits on MOTD as they seem to have their share of English and Scots.
1. You still have not answered whether you are just some "up-himself Ali-G clone" preaching left wing tripe on a TV forum.
2. Finding "suitable people for the role" is what Lambeth Council (amongst others) did in their glorious loony-left days in the '80's, when they would recruit by quota regardless of ability or qualifications.
"We need a lawyer, but are lacking a one-legged Chinese lesbian" so they would recruit an unquaified one-legged Chinese lesbian, ignoring the fact that they were totally unqualified. Any Council officlals questioning the recruitment of such unqualified individuals would be accused of racism and duly sacked.
3. Answer the Ortis question.
I guess the question is, how do we know there isn't equal opportunity when it comes to football punditry?? It's the easiest thing in the world to point to the factual evidence - the overwhelming majority of football pundits on TV are white - and conclude that it must be because there isn't equal opportunity. In reality, there may be many legimitate, non-discriminatory, non-racists reasons.
For example, it would certainly help if we knew the proporation of white players to black players in our country. And not just today, but historically over the past 30 years, given that most pundits are retired players. Because IF we were looking at 70-80% white / and 20-30% black, then proportionately we'd expect there to be more white pundits than black. I don't know if anyone has figures to hand?
In terms of the criteria for TV punditry, it's hardly stringent, but I'd have thought some of the following would apply: -
a). Person is a well-known ex-footballer or manager
b). Person was a great player / very successful ex-footballer or manager
c). Person is reasonably articulate and can express opinions
Now can it not be possible, indeed probable, that when the BBC's production team look at what pundits they're going to use for MOTD, feel that the majority of available pundits who fit the above three points just happen to be white? And that skin colour isn't even an issue? Or am I being hopelessly naive?
It doesn't really matter whether you or I think Dion Dublin is great or Jason Roberts... If the BBC don't feel either score as high in their selection criteria as other existing and more used pundits, then surely we have to say, so be it!
Sorry, you lost me at this point.
Alan Shearer is one of the worst 'pundits' of all time, content to just tell you what you have just seen.
He adds no insight whatsoever and is aggressively dull.
But that's the whole point. What you are advocating is not equal opportunity, it is giving someone more opportunity because of the colour of their skin. I don't doubt that the NFL policy has led to an increase in the number of non-white coaches. Does that make it right? That's a matter of opinion. That is positive discrimination and not equal opportunity as you are potentially interviewing someone because of the colour of their skin.
I still stand by my previous point. Why should someone be treated more favourably because of the colour of their skin any more than they should be because of any other aspect of their background or appearance etc?. Who is interviewed or not interviewed for a position should be purely based upon who best meets the requirements of the job, nothing else.
Historically the best pundit candidates may have been white or they may not have been. The whole point is that it shouldn't matter. I don't have insider knowledge of how the BBC chooses its pundits so I can't really comment further on this. However, pundits are on a contract like any other job. Are you saying that the BBC should get rid of one of the incumbents to make the pundit team more diverse? If I was removed from my job and replaced by someone simply becuase they represented a different ethnic group then I would have a case for unfair dismissal. How is football pundetary any different?
And the problem in the NFL was solved, not by a continuing policy of equal opportunity, but because the culture was changed by the short term implementation of equal opportunity.
As far as I can tell you're advocating that if chairmen wish to choose from an all-white shortlist, that is their perogative - and if they can find a convincing enough excuse there's nothing we can do. I contend it's ingrained, cultural racism and there is something we can (and should) do.
How do you know who best meets the requirements - that in itself is a subjective term, one which is all too easily (and all too often) abused.
Are you suggesting that the disproportionately low number of black managers is because they aren't as good as white managers? I suggest the issue is one of cultural attitudes, ingrained amongst club owners and pevading the fabric of football - the fewer black managers are seen to be accepted, the fewer black candidate managers will apply for the jobs that are available, as the evidence they are less likely to be chosen is so strong.
On a related matter (although this is just something I noticed, a curiousity if you will) - count the proportion of white to non-white players featured in the opening credit sequence of MotD. Now there's where we start talking conspiracy!
It might well be that there's a dearth of non-white applicants.
As for the point that it might be the dearth of 'good' non-white pundits, it might be. But either punditry skills are subjective (so no-one can says whether one pundit is 'better' than another) in which case there's no reason why there shouldn't be a higher proportion of non-white pundits on the headline show...
...or there are objective things we can point to - vocabulary, articulateness, tactical knowledge, coaching qualifications - in which case a)you point them out and how we distinguish and b)you make the case that white pundits are 'better', objectively - which you'll have to, in order to explain why they monopolise the panel on the main show.
(and the main show's the issue because of the status and slot... or even just the viewing figures).
[as for the posters who want to make an issue of MY skin colour... you can make whatever issue you want to of my colour, as it only reflects on your own attitudes doesn't it.]
lol - I advocated Hartson and Dublin (Welsh and badly punned Irish) as the future 'dream team'.
Match of the Day - where's your non-white pundits?
But the OP is not saying the BBC is racist. Oh no. Nor is the OP advocating positive racial discrimination, either. Oh no. The OP is just looking for a problem that isn't there. Though what that problem is, I have been unable to fathom.
Racism is society? - Yes. Racism on or by TV specifically or in general? - No.
What a stupid thread.
Exactly, lots of women do follow and understand football and it would be great to see us represented both as pundits (Hope Powell especially step forward) and represented more within the game, I hope that I get to see a woman Premier League manager in years to come, however I feel that this idea and discussion may be better as a thread in the football section of this site.
Just have to say I totally agree with the FM who referred to Claridge as a half wit, I can certainly think of other names for him, but I don't want to be banned!