Not being able to have coverage of football on the BBC was hardly the Lineker Crisis that the BBC declared in its coverage of its own debacle. Indeed, with some people who actually watch it declaring that the highlights were better without the inane commentary and most people going about their lives oblivious to the silence, it could hardly be said to be worthy of being called even a storm in a teacup. I don’t know if Gary and his sulking fellow presenters went unpaid for not appearing (as supposed freelancers, one might hope they don’t get paid if they don’t do the work), but if they weren’t paid, the situation could actually be called a money-saving success. But, knowing the BBC, they probably were paid…
There has been a lot of waffle about freedom of speech, whether BBC impartiality rules apply to Gary Lineker as he is, officially, a freelancer, and whether impartiality only applies to the specific field a presenter is active in, all of which ignore the key point: Anyone who works for the BBC, especially someone who is remunerated so well as he is, is funded by everyone who pays for a television licence, whether or not they wish to fund them.
Compare JK Rowling. If you disagree with her views on transwomen, you can freely boycott the latest Harry Potter game without being forced to pay her wage if you buy some other game. Nor does a penny spent on a book written by someone else go to fund her royalties. Even when the BBC pays her for the rights to produce a Cormoran Strike episode, which does come from the licence fee regardless of the payer’s opinion, it’s a one-off and not a regular wage, and in doing so the BBC isn’t providing the basis for her celebrity to present her views.
What Gary Lineker receives from the BBC, despite his supposedly freelance status, is a regular, and vastly-inflated, wage and a presence not accorded to most old footballers, who generally fade from sight once they are no longer particularly proficient at kicking a ball about. To expect the licence-fee payers to fund him, whilst taking advantage of the platform to air his frequently ill-considered views, is offensive.
If the BBC wants to maintain the licence fee, then it and those it employs need to be as neutral as possible and if any of its employees doesn’t like that, they should quit and enjoy the freedom to present their uncensored views without relying on the licence-fee payers to fund them and the BBC to provide them with unwarranted fame and credibility.
DJ Tyrer's Blog 