After Manchester United’s 2-1 win over Liverpool at the weekend, a bitter taste was left in the mouth of Anfield legend Jamie Carragher after he was videoed spitting in the direction of a 14-year-old girl.
After being subjected to ‘banter’ from fellow motorists on his drive back to Merseyside, something snapped inside the Sky Sports pundit.
Footage uploaded to social media showed Carragher’s car pulling up alongside one being driven by the girl’s father and, after a brief verbal exchange, the former England defender is seen spitting at them before speeding away.
What he describes as a “moment of madness” and the “worst mistake” of his 25-year career, has not gone down well with public or his employers, who have suspended him from his punditry role.
A Sky spokesperson tweeted: “Jamie Carragher has been suspended from his duties… after he was filmed spitting at a family in their car following Liverpool’s defeat against Manchester United on Saturday.”
As vile as his act may have been, the debate to whether he should keep his job at Sky Sports rumbles on. TV sports presenters and pundits have been fired for a lot less.
When footage of the sexist antics of Sky Sports duo Richard Keys and Andy Gray was leaked in 2011, both were fired. But while sexism is not accepted in this day and age, their behaviour didn’t break the law, unlike Carragher’s.
What has followed since the spitting episode is a lot of apologies and a few tears shed, but is this enough?
Should the Liverpudlian be fired for his behaviour because not only is he a sporting legend, but a role model for many young people, and this wouldn’t be tolerated if he wasn’t famous.
But should Carragher no longer be able to do what he loves for a living simply because he reacted badly after being provoked?
Gary Neville, Carragher’s punditry partner and once-bitter rival tweeted: “I have just watched @Carra32 say sorry. No excuses he’s made a big mistake.
“He’s massively passionate about football and he’s overstepped the mark and shouldn’t have reacted. I’ve been on TV for 3 years with him and imo this isolated incident shouldn’t stop us working together.”
Many believe Neville is trying to help his now good friend, rather than seeing the situation for what it really is.
Others argue that if that it was an ‘ordinary’ man involved, he would be charged with common assault, which could lead to a conviction and result in him losing his job.
So why isn’t Carragher losing his job and being treated like everyone else would be over something that is documented and undeniable?
Before this incident, Carragher had become extremely popular with the football public through his great punditry skills and his back-and-forth banter with Neville, so should we look at this one incident or his career as a whole?
Speaking to Sky, Carragher said: “Some people may like me, some people may not like me even before this incident, but hopefully going forward I can show them that I don’t feel this is the real representation of me.
“As I said, hopefully Sky or the general public will look at the 25 years – and I’ve made mistakes in those 25 years – but this, the mistake I’ve made is a huge one.”
Following intensive media attention, the father of the teenager – who was also breaking the law by filming on his phone while driving – went on to release his own statement, saying: “We don’t want him to lose his job. It’s not about that.
“We wanted an apology and explanation. He seems contrite. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human. He did seem extremely sorry.”
So is this something that simply went too far and exposed both men’s law-breaking behaviour, or has it not gone far enough and do they need to be prosecuted for something that would not be tolerated in any other situation?
It is commonly – and correctly – argued that the rise of fan punditry in football can be credited with digital advances.
Technological developments have facilitated the entry of non-professional voices into the journalistic arena and completely transformed the nature of discussion and analysis.
“The modern trend of prioritising corporate influence over fan involvement has left supporters unfamiliar with the sport they once knew, and bred huge resentment”
The rules have changed: punditry has become increasingly uncensored, certainly on social media platforms. The grip of sports editors, radio and TV producers over discourse in the football media environment has been loosened.
In recent years, YouTube channels, vlogs and social media sites have provided football fans with platforms through which to express their opinions, in both unfiltered and instant fashion.
These new media have had a potent effect on the way in which football punditry is conducted. Fans, smartened through easy access to historical records, statistics and tactical information, have used alternative platforms to demonstrate their lack of patience with mainstream punditry.
As football fans have become more knowledgeable, their dissatisfaction with the quality of professional punditry has declined, perhaps the result of higher expectations and a desire to see their footballing acumen reflected on television.
Microcosmic of the growing competition between fan-led and professional punditry were Gary Neville’s comments on Sky’s Super Sunday recently about Arsenal Fan TV, a successful YouTube channel attracting hundreds of thousands of views.
He referred to Arsenal fans outside Stamford Bridge participating in filmed interviews as “embarrassing”, and called one man inside the ground brandishing a ‘Time for Change’ banner an “idiot”.
Irrespective of the views that were expressed, the segment illustrated a disconnect between mainstream and fan opinion.
I do not think that comment on whether Neville was right is necessary. But his comments were a powerful reminder that many fans simply no longer feel represented in the footballing world.
Television companies, intent on maximising their viewership and advertising revenue, hire big-name pundits on lucrative deals.
The result is often a monotonous and one-dimensional sample of experts. Most big football matches today are analysed by ex-Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United players.
For broadcasters, it has become more about presentation than it has intelligent – or even watchable – discussion. This fact symbolises one huge change in modern professional football. Fan marginalisation is now widespread.
In the upper reaches of the the game, it manifests itself in sky-high ticket prices, intensive commercialisation and corporate sponsors dominating the financial and sporting agendas.
Where it was once considered the norm for the working classes to pay the top clubs a visit and watch them play, nowadays, those in attendance tend to be older fans and clients at various events.
Replaced by corporate hospitality, commercial leverage on club policy and TV rights, the modern football fan has seen his or her role in and around the stadium attacked to a demoralising extent.
In many ways, football was always capitalist, but the modern trend of prioritising corporate influence over fan involvement has left supporters unfamiliar with the sport they once knew, and bred huge resentment.
Once upon a time, football pundits were liked and trusted. Fans were more deferential. They knew less and didn’t have the same readily-available information that they now enjoy. Fans appreciated those ex-pros and their ‘expert’ views.
“Perhaps the most potent incentive for this has been the treatment of the modern football fan, left sidelined by the cynical business executives who really run the game”
Today, fans have been excluded from football’s centre of focus. Their response to this crushing blow has been to mobilise and attack the game from the new avenues provided by digital platforms – and with impressive popularity.
The disenfranchisement of modern fans has given birth to a monster that football itself can do little to change.
The anger visible amidst the content of amateur punditry, too, highlights the growing separation between the interests of the average fan and the direction that the game is taking.
One only has to watch YouTube clips and browse the internet for a few minutes to find individuals committed to rallying against club owners and the excesses of modern, neo-liberal capitalism.
The digital age, it is true, has allowed supporters to venture into punditry, share their views in blogs and videos and engage with others.
But perhaps the most potent incentive for this has been the treatment of the modern football fan, left sidelined by the cynical business executives who really run the game.
When Arsenal lost 3-1 to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge recently, the Sky Sports cameras picked out a Gunners fan in the crowd with a ‘Time to go’ banner aimed at Arsene Wenger.
Former Manchester United and England defender turned pundit Gary Neville called the fan an ‘idiot’. This sparked plenty reaction, and the fan – Kane Hopps – suddenly found fame via social media.
Elephant Sport down with him to to get his side of the story, and his views on Neville, Wenger and Arsenal.
How the past few weeks been for you?
It has been pretty crazy. People have been calling me, texting me, tweeting me – even [Times football correspondent] Henry Winter, The Sun and TalkSport. It’s definitely not something I expected from just putting the banner up.
How have you dealt with being at the centre of a media frenzy?
It’s certainly been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. I’ve had to get on with my day job while it’s all been happening so it has been a bit difficult, especially getting calls left right and centre from various new outlets. But overall I think I have dealt with it pretty well!
You have received a lot of support from fellow fans. What does that say about Wenger’s current situation at Arsenal?
It shows the tide has most certainly turned and has become more vocal than it has ever been before. People who have previously been on Wenger’s side have even had enough now and it shows that more and more fans are not just going to sit there and accept it now.
Everybody knows about that banner now; will that recognition persuade you to bring it to even more games?
Definitely – that was the plan anyway. The Watford and Chelsea defeats have shown me nothing has changed. He goes on about how this squad is better and different this year, but it’s not. I don’t care what we do from now until the end of the season, we are not going to win the Premier League (which we were promised) so something has to change or the banner will keep on coming.
During games, has anybody come up to you in support of the banner?
Yes, quite often. At Chelsea I had people coming up to me and patting me on the back saying well done, who were in favour of the banner. We even managed to get a ‘Wenger out’ chant going for about 10 seconds or so. There are far more in favour of it than not, put it that way.
Has anybody come up to you who have not been in favour of the banner?
A few people approach me and ask me why I do it and tell me to ‘support the team instead’. But they miss the point – I am supporting my team. I am supporting the club by doing what I believe is best for it! I respect their views whether I agree with them or not, so they should do the same with mine.
If you’d won at Stamford Bridge, would we have still seen the banner?
Yes. I know a lot of people will not believe me but win, lose or draw, that banner was coming out. The home game to Watford was the tipping point, and I cannot continue to sit here, pay all this money for the same mistakes to keep happening year in year out.
Can Wenger do anything now to prevent you from protesting/bringing the banner?
For me, no. That ship has sailed unfortunately. The FA Cups were nice but for a club like Arsenal to not win the league for over 12 years isn’t good enough and the manner in which we go about it. The way we capitulate year after year after year, nothing changes.
He goes into the transfer market and doesn’t buy the right players. We are short, again. Injuries hit us, again. We crumble in the big games, again. That will never change under him – otherwise, it would have changed already.
So when can we expect to see the banner next?
The next game!
Moving on to Gary Neville’s comment, what was your immediate reaction to being called ‘an idiot’ live on air?
First of all ‘wow’. I could not believe so much had been made of it. But I was quite shocked that he called me an idiot because he has been quite vocal over Wenger, his failures, and how we are not title challengers.
So I ask for all that to change and all of a sudden he goes on the defensive and calls me an idiot! I thought it was very contradictory of him, especially from a top pundit to call a paying fan an ‘idiot’ for his own opinion, I was surprised.
Bearing in mind you didn’t take it personally, can you almost be thankful to Neville for the free publicity, even if it was unintentional?
Yes, that would be fair. He has blown it up so much that it has ended up on the news, radio and national papers – the exposure it has had has been crazy. So I guess a small part of me does have to thank him for that!
Do his views towards fans like you change your views towards him as a pundit?
Not really. I still respect him as a pundit and think he talks a lot of sense when he is analysing the game. He is not biased and does not let personal views dictate that either. But this particular view makes me think he is less in touch with fans than I thought, that’s for sure.
If you were in a room with him in a ‘gloves off’ scenario, and he maintained his view that you or any Arsenal fan who brings a banner to a match to express their views is an idiot, how would you respond?
There are a load of things I’d love to debate with him – the main one being why he feels he can call me an idiot for having an opinion, and really press him to see if he actually feels that towards any paying fan, not just Arsenal fans.
I’d also like to ask him how he can continue to criticise Wenger (even throughout the Chelsea game) and then question me when I ask for the same things to be changed in a positive way! I also think managing Valencia has made him go soft on other managers – has he has seen first had how hard it can be?
He seems to sympathise with managers more nowadays after his experience at Valencia, so I would love to question him on that too.
For many people, football’s international break is a chance to catch up on missed shows such as The Walking Dead or Eastenders. For others like myself it was a chance to delve into a new sport.
After coming across Sky Sports’ promotion of the Red Bull Street Style world final on their website, I was filled with curiosity.
With the winter months in full flow, most people would be against the idea of going out on a chilly, blustery evening, but I was willing to broaden my horizons and watch a new sport.
Tickets cost £10 – peanuts in an age when prices to see elite sportspeople in action tend to be excessive and immoderate.
A tenner to witness some breathtaking displays of showboating in a world final was without doubt value for money.
The event took place at the Roundhouse in Camden, north London, and I was filled with excitement and eagerness to see a different style of football.
The Red Bull Street Style is freestyle football’s premier tournament, where the world’s top tricksters go head-to-head against one another in a bid to impress the judges with their extravagant abilities.
The competition burst onto the scene in Brazil in 2008 and has also taken place in South Africa, Italy and Japan.
The 2014 event, back in Brazil, saw the most fluent freestylers from 44 nations battling it out for the biggest prize within their sport.
Britain’s Andrew Henderson, who has performed at Old Trafford and put Barcelona’s Neymar to the test in a freestyle battle, captured his first title with some dazzling showboating.
The rules are pretty straightforward. Three minutes, two players, one ball and one victor.
As I warmed up with burger and chips, excitement rippled through the Roundhouse crowd as it was announced that former Manchester United and England defender turned TV pundit Gary Neville was on the judging panel.
He was joined by Sean Garnier, the winner of the very first Red Bull Street Style in 2008.
Since then, the French star has been influencing and tracking the pulse of the sport and his name needed no introduction to the fans of freestyling.
The cheers were deafening for both Garnier and Sky Sports pundit Neville and the volume only kept increasing.
The atmosphere around the place was louder than most match days at the Emirates Stadium, with ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ whenever someone did something amazing with the ball, plus moans and groans when competitors failed to get out of their comfort zone.
It was a superb showcase of jaw-dropping tricks and seemingly impossible transitions that left everyone astounded.
Talent on show
With the biggest names in freestyle looking to stamp their authority on proceedings, the level of competition was so high that no-one was safe from elimination.
Portugal’s Ricardinho, one of the favourites to win, went out in the quarter-finals.
Another casualty was Ireland’s Daniel Dennehy, who oozed class and ability but was defeated by Carlos Alberto Iacono, the man from Argentina who was hoping it would be third time lucky in 2016.
After coming up just short in the last two tournaments, the man nicknamed ‘Charly’ was determined to claim the crown in London.
Ahead of the men’s final, the world’s best female freestylers got their chance to show off their talents.
The final between Melody Donchet of France and Poland’s Aguska Mnich was a truly gripping encounter.
In the semi-finals, Donchet had seemingly given her all to defeat long-time rival and double world champion Kitti Szasz of Hungary.
But there was more to come from her. In a fearless performance, the French star defeated Mnich with seamless transitions from standing to sit-down tricks and back up again.
Donchet’s ability to persevere when most fans felt she had nothing left in her bag of tricks was simply remarkable.
She secured her second consecutive title and, in the process, elevated her reputation to a new high.
Iacono on top
In the men’s final, Iacono managed to get the monkey off his back by defeating Japan’s Kosuke Takahashi.
The Argentinian’s ability to ignore the noise from the crowd was one of the main reasons to why he delivered on the big stage.
At times it seemed like Iacono did have wings as he delivered the technical moves for which he is best known.
He sealed victory with one of the hardest handstand tricks ever seen, as he juggled the ball flawlessly on his calf.
Russian’s Anatoliy Yanchev earned third with a respectable performance, however Iacono’s feat earned him a rousing reception from the arena and his piece of history showed that you should never give up under any circumstances
As he admitted afterwards: “After losing several times, I was discouraged. But my heart told me you have to try again.”
Since leaving Manchester United in the summer, Ryan Giggs has become the latest high profile ex-player to step into a TV studio and chance his arm at punditry.
The Welshman’s transition from Old Trafford’s left wing, to the ITV sofa, (via the dugout), is a path trodden by many in recent years. Tune in to football coverage, be it on TV, radio or the internet, and you’ll struggle to not find the opinions of a former player.
So why exactly are so many ex-pros finding their second careers within the media?
Peter Lovenkrands played at the highest level for clubs such as Rangers, Schalke and Newcastle United, and also represented Denmark in two major tournaments.
As is the case for many an ex-sportsperson, replacing the buzz of competition proved difficult following his retirement.
Yet, while nothing can ever replicate the feeling of 90 minutes on a football pitch, for Lovenkrands, media work provides the perfect way to remain closely involved in the sport.
“I don’t think you’ll see many more now going from punditry to coaching”
“For me, it’s the closest thing to playing. When I stopped playing, [punditry] was the thing that helped me get over missing it,” said Lovenkrands, who co-commentates on German Bundesliga games.
He explained: “There’s a thing in the football world, people who don’t have anything to go into after playing kind of struggle, and some people get depression, even.
“It’s something that a lot of players find hard. I even find it hard still sometimes when I’m sitting in commentary, you think ‘I want to be out there, I want to be playing’.
“But by sitting watching and talking about it, that’s the closest thing to getting the atmosphere in the stadium and being [out] there. I really enjoy it and that’s what helps me get over retirement.”
Giggs may believe that coaching or management is the closest thing to playing.
After the disappointment of being overlooked for the United hotseat, some might argue that his regular appearances on our TV screens serve only to keep him ‘relevant’ in the eyes of fans and club owners alike, reminding us of his suitability for a role in management.
In his excellent book, Living On The Volcano, Michael Calvin discusses the way in which Tony Pulis left his post at Crystal Palace, only to find himself the new manager of West Brom, thanks to a little help from the media.
Wrote Calvin: “He maintained his profile as a media pundit, refused to enlarge on the circumstances which led to him leaving Palace by ‘mutual consent’, and watched the stakes rise. He would join West Bromwich Albion almost as soon as his gardening leave ended.”
Gary Neville, of course, is a fine example of an excellent pundit who enhanced opinions of his highly thought-of coaching ability, by educating (rather than patrionising) us on screen.
“I think these days you’re one or the other; you’re either a pundit, or you’re a coach”
Neville provides no catchphrases, no clichés and certainly none of the ‘faux-intelligence’ displayed by many of his peers on alternative channels.
However after three tournaments with England as part of Roy Hodgson’s backroom staff and a short-lived spell as Valencia manager, Neville himself feels it will be difficult for him to step from commentary box into the dugout once again.
But what about everybody else? Jamie Carragher once joked on Sky’s Monday Night Football that “no pundit on TV will ever get a job again, he’s [Neville] ruined it for us all”.
Lovenkrands, who now works for Rangers TV, makes the point that the demands and differences between working ‘on-pitch’ and working ‘on-screen’, may make it difficult for others to follow in Neville’s footsteps.
“I think these days you’re one or the other; you’re either a pundit, or you’re a coach,” said the 36 year old.
“He [Neville] was kind of the first one to go from being a proper Sky pundit, to go and take the Valencia job. Even though he was a pundit, he had the England job, but that’s not full-time.
“I praise him for taking the chance and trying to go and do his thing. I love him as a pundit, I think he’s fantastic. Him and Jamie Redknapp are two of my favourites.
“But I don’t think you’ll see many more now going from punditry to coaching.”
Neville’s success as a pundit can be attributed to his obvious desire for hard work, his undoubted knowledge for the world of football from training ground to boardroom and, quite simply, his knack for talking honestly and passionately on air.
Other pundits choose to go down a different route, offering controversy and sparking vicious debate amongst viewers, listeners and people within the football industry alike.
Neither approach is wrong or right; success for Neville could look different to success for Robbie Savage. Either way, they are both successful.
For Lovenkrands, controversy should come with a hint of caution.
“I’ve spoken about that with people before and a lot of people say you can go two ways. One is knowledge, knowing so many things. And then there’s the controversial side of it,” said the Dane, who still holds a close affinity with the fans of many of his former clubs.
“Chris Sutton, for example, has been quite controversial with a lot of things, especially up here in Scotland. He’s had a lot of criticism because of the controversial way he’s been talking about the game.
“But for me that becomes a little bit like the X Factor and Simon Cowell, where somebody’s being negative. The same as Strictly Come Dancing where one of the judges will be negative, it creates a lot of interest for people watching it because they’re thinking ‘what’s he going to say next?’.
“I feel like you have to be careful when you’re going down that road because I don’t like being hated. I like to be positive, but of course you have to be honest if certain things don’t happen right.
“A lot of people don’t care about being controversial and that seems to have helped them in getting more jobs because people want to hear what they have to say, even if they maybe don’t like what they’re saying.
“My view on it is you can be negative and controversial, but try to put a positive spin on it and not upset too many people.”
The reality is that football is a sport in which no matter how positive one may be, someone will always be upset.
Like anyone, footballers can be sensitive to the comments of others; they are human beings after all.
John Terry has been the captain of his club and country, played in major games in front of some of the most hostile supporters, and faced public disgrace over his racist comments to a fellow professional.
Yet for Terry, receiving criticism from Robbie Savage over his form last season was not something he planned on taking lightly.
He responded by comparing his own successful career to Savage’s, and insinuating that criticism offered by a less successful player was not welcome.
“You try not to be too controversial and there’s a limit, I feel. You can be critical, but about football and not being personal at all”
Lovenkrands however believes that criticism is to be expected as a footballer, as long as opinions never become personal.
Having played with Joey Barton at Newcastle, the Liverpudlian’s current situation with Rangers could potentially have put Lovenkrands in a tricky situation.
“Sometimes it’s something you need to think twice about. But if you want to be in that kind of business you have to just say what you feel because you get paid to be honest and talk about what you see,” said Lovenkrands, who finished his playing career in the Championship with Birmingham City.
“If I feel like there’s certain things that have happened that I feel are negative, I have to say it and I have to just deal with it. To be fair, most people in the football world would understand.
“You try not to be too controversial and there’s a limit, I feel. You can be critical, but about football and not being personal at all.
“I think that’s the fine line I’m finding as a commentator.”
Carragher and Neville hold the prestige of being one-club defenders who gave everything for Liverpool and Manchester United respectively.
Whilst their rivalry on the pitch has turned to admiration in the studio, the passion they have for their old clubs still remains.
Yet a major strength of both, is that through their media work you would struggle to work out their allegiances.
Being fair and balanced is a must for any journalist, however, were the ex-defenders to work for their club’s own TV channel, would their approach be encouraged to change?
Shedding some light on the subject of bias, Lovenkrands said: “The Rangers commentary that I do, it’s for Rangers TV, so I don’t need to be biased in any way.
“I really enjoy that because I’m a Rangers fan as well so when they score I can celebrate and be part of it in that way. That’s really exciting.
“But when I do the German football, or sometimes when I’ve done Premier League games, or Scottish football for radio, then of course you have to make sure you commentate on both teams and be professional about it.
“I like that as well, that I have to be that aware.”
So to revisit the original question as to why football coverage is now saturated with former pros, each individual will have their reasons. Some will say the salary appeals, whilst the job security far outweighs that in management or coaching.
Others may see it as a profile booster, a public job interview every time the ‘ON AIR’ light is switched on. For those who have no interest in coaching, media work provides a no-pressure involvement with the game.
But for Lovenkrands, his reasons are far simpler. “I just love football,” summed up the former striker.
“I get carried away when I commentate so when a goal happens, no matter what team it’s for, in the Bundesliga for example, I get carried away and start celebrating.
“That’s the way it should be. It should be coming across for people to listen to that you’re excited about your job and what you’re doing.”