THE POWER OF PUNDITRY

JONNY BRICK GIVES FIVE REASONS WHY PUNDITRY, OR 'BANTERNALYSIS' AS HE CALLS IT, REMAINS A KEY PILLAR OF TODAY'S FOOTBALL COVERAGE...

IN A world of User Generated Content, curated by algorithms just for YOU that can be scrolled through to balm or rile the soul, why do football fanatics watch, let alone care about, opinions?

Why do football pundits put on a suit and espouse the passing options of a playmaker instead of keeping to philanthropic work or going into coaching? Why do TV and radio producers use them as on-air talent when any viewer can see ‘the defender can do better there’ and ‘the rule says if it hits a hand it’s a penalty’?

Is Adam Hurrey, guru of the football cliché, right when he says pundits do a lot of talking ‘without actually saying anything’? I can think of five reasons why the pundit as a species still thrives in the wild: 

To Feel Angry

The columns of Jeremy Clarkson, the tweets of Piers Morgan, the media careers of Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins: these all serve, or served, to monetise the air and suck in the oxygen of debate.

Pundits and soothsayers have always made people act on their words, all the way back to Ancient Greece. Football punditry is not life or death; (altogether now) it’s much more important than that.

In fact, you and I both know it isn’t. What an ex-pro believes has no bearing on the tilting of the earth or the ebbing of the tides. It does serve to enhance the speaker’s brand, especially if their predictions come true or if they make a cogent argument about a player or topic. 

Confirmation Bias