The football broadcaster was suspended over a post on asylum seeker policy, sparking an almighty row over impartiality and a worker revolt.  What’s it all about, and what does it have in common with the Rob Campbell drama in NZ?

Amid Britain’s endless piñata of psychodrama, who cares about some football broadcaster?

Though it might not have the immediate gobsmacking impact of, say, the Liz Truss meltdown or the humiliating leak of 100,000 WhatsApp messages from former health secretary Matt Hancock, the tremors of the Gary Lineker saga sit above some major political and cultural faultlines: most acutely, the Conservative government’s asylum seeker policies and deep-seated divisions within politics and the media about BBC bias. 

What happened?

In the middle of last week, Gary Lineker, long a critic of what he considers inhumane government response to those seeking asylum in Britain, compared the latest government policy on this blue-touch-paper issue in UK politics and media to policies in 1930s Nazi Germany. This was the tweet:

Was that really the tweet?

Apologies. No. (But Leicester did win and he did present in his undies, fwiw.) In the tweet, which proved again Godwin’s law, he called the government asylum plan “an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.

What is the policy? 

The “stop the boats” pledge by Rishi Sunak’s government – in large part modelled on the Australian example – would seek to halt would-be migrants travelling across the channel and send them back to their home country or, if that wasn’t possible, a third country, likely Rwanda. He is right about the UK’s refugee intake. While the number of people arriving in boats has increased, it has been often exaggerated, with home secretary Suella Braverman, for instance, suggesting “billions of people” might be thinking about it.

Back up the bus. Who’s Gary Lineker?

A former England footballer, turned potato chip salesman. A perma-bronzed, ageless Adonis, Lineker has been the host of Match of the Day since the last millennium. He’s also reportedly the best paid presenter at the state broadcaster, pocketing more than NZ $2.5m a year.  

What is Match of the Day – a football highlights show?

Yes, but more than that, it’s a kind of national institution, beaming highlights, match interviews and punditry from the day’s top-flight football into lounges across Britain since the 60s. You know the one: da da-da daaa da-da da-da-da da-da da-da da-da.

So what happened with the tweet?

Following an outcry from many, including Conservative politicians and right-leaning media, the BBC on Saturday deemed Lineker’s “recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines”, and that he had “stepped down” until they could agree on how he’d manage his tweeting and so on. He hadn’t stepped down, however; he’d been stood down, or suspended. 

Then what?

Match of the Day pundits including human god Ian Wright and former footballer Alan Shearer announced they wouldn’t be taking part in the show that night, either, in solidarity. Then the match commentators said they were out, too. And players indicated they’d not be participating. A bunch of people across BBC sports TV and radio similarly “stepped down”. Match of the Day screened at a dramatically truncated 20 minutes, with no commentary and no studio mortar. It amounted, said media across the board, to a “revolt”. 

So did Lineker breach guidelines?

That’s not a simple matter. The “impartiality” guidelines have been tightened lately to stress “extra responsibility” for those with a high profile but remain ambiguous. That would not be so were Lineker a news presenter or political journalist, of course. As it is, he is not even a staff member, but a freelance contributor. 

Following his suspension, screeds of examples of BBC contributors, employed on a similar basis to Lineker, expressing sharp political views were unearthed, including the pronouncements of Apprentice host Alan Sugar (eg tweeted a pic of Jeremy Corbyn sitting alongside Adolf Hitler) and Jeremy Clarkson (many instances, including declaring striking workers should be “shot in front of their families” at the time he was Top Gear presenter).

And Lineker hadn’t been airing his views on TV, had he?

Well, he did at least once: in introducing the BBC coverage of the last World Cup, in Qatar. He heavily criticised Fifa and questioned the host’s human rights record. The difference was that was at least tacitly approved by the BBC and the political consensus in Britain. Turns out human rights records are fair game abroad, but not at home. 

How does it fit into the wider controversy about the BBC and impartiality?

Many in the Conservative Party, echoed and emboldened by newspapers such as the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph, have long inveighed against and demanded the defunding of the BBC in response to what they claim is a pro-Labour bias.

Under the Conservatives, which has led government for 13 years, there have been moves to reform the funding model. Recent controversy has surrounded the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chair, after it was reported in January that he had helped arrange a loan to Boris Johnson just weeks before the then prime minister recommended him for the role. 

BBC director general Tim Davie, meanwhile, was appointed in 2020 on a mandate of ensuring impartiality at the broadcaster. His own impartiality has been questioned by some, however, given he once stood for local government as a Conservative.

The episode fed also into disquiet about what many see as a BBC that has become increasingly anxious about upsetting the government, as in the report – denied by the corporation – that it had decided not to screen on a flagship channel an episode of a David Attenborough series on British wildlife because its depiction of destruction to the natural world risked a “rightwing backlash”.

What does it have to do with New Zealand’s Rob Campbell?

The man who resigned as Te Whatu Ora chair the other day after criticising centre-right policy will at very least be watching the Lineker episode with some interest. 

How similar are they?

Apart from the footballing, bronzedness and pay packet, they both faced questions about whether they’d been sufficiently impartial as public employees. But have been unapologetic. For Campbell, however, the difference is that the code of conduct for crown entity board members is pretty clear – absent a pledge not to repeat his Linkedin polemics, it was game over.

What happens next for Lineker?

Davie has said he is in “listening mode”, while there are reports of Lineker indicating a resolution is likely within 24 hours. But even if Lineker and Match of the Day resume normal transmission, the pressure on the director general and the chair will only grow, while the spotlight on the government policy for asylum seekers beams more intensely. 

What did the people say?

Polling suggests they’re with the potato chips salesman.