The World Cup of punditry

Now I'm no football fan - obviously as I'm a Wolves fan, before anyone feels the urge to crack that joke - but having a flatmate who is a fanatic, I haven't been able to avoid the World Cup.

But, far more interesting than the football for me, as a forced observer, has been the performance of the rival pundits on the BBC and ITV.

The BBC scored a cracker with the amusing Clarence Seedorf - a Dutch footballer apparently - whose feature on that ball that bends around corners in particular was hilarious, and actually quite enlightening.

And seemingly in direct competition was the ITV's own Dutch signing, Edgar Davids, who was really not as interesting, let alone funny! Bless him, but he didn't seem to cotton on to the age-old pundit banter and hilarity...

And don't get me started on Gareth Southgate, although I have warmed to him, probably because I was the only bloke in the world who laughed at the Pizza Hut ad he did after missing a penalty.

But leading the way of course are the two frontmen.

Gary Lineker, who is starting to get very irritating with the way he raises his eyes when cracking a sarcastic little funny, compared to Adrian Chiles, who seemingly can't stop saying "why do we do this to ourselves?" when talking about any match (and I presume the bumper ITV contract would be the primary reason Adrian)...

Also disappointing, particularly last night (a semi-final between Holland and someone in blue which weirdly saw Mr Davids absent from the ITV panel, when you would presume this was THE game to have him on?), was the lack of a commentary pundit.

I love these guys; the bloke who has to sit next to the actual commentator, usually an ex-pro, and give us a bit of professional insight into what has happened.

I only saw the first half, so perhaps this was rectified later, but from what I heard, the ITV commentator was alone (I don't know who he was, but he did an admirable job in the face of adversity), probably freezing on a gantry, the wind gusting around his ears, wishing to have Mick McCarthy or someone alongside him to share in the thrill of the game, although it was really boring.

Sad really, I always enjoy comparing the professional commentator to the ageing footballer, who always seems to disagree with his gantry comrade.

Still, with ad revenues being what they are on commercial television, I suppose it would be no great surprise if Gary Gillespie turned up in South Africa (who knows, he may even commentate via satellite from London, or Liverpool, or Milton Keynes) only to find a P45 in his rented bedsit.

Shame, because we could do with a pundit during the game rather than Adrian 'I-look-like-I'm-sad-even-when-I'm-happy' Chiles, God love him.

But perhaps that's just me. Football fans are a strange bunch, so may well have loved every minute.

UPDATE: I was right, ITV commentator Clive Tyldesley was forced to commentate alone after his co-pro, Jim Beglin, suffered an ear infection.

Newspapers compared to the Premier League...

Newspapers can be directly compared to Premier League football clubs.

There it is, I've said it. And while it may sound ridiculous, please permit me the time to argue my apparently-bullshit point...

Premier League clubs had their day. The first TV deal done with Sky was worth somewhere around £200m, which was unheard of at the time.

The deal then increased, to more than £1 billion.

Obviously, the clubs spent this new money lavishly, be it on ludicrous transfer fees, or the oft-slammed player wages.

Now compare that to newspapers. Many were the unchallenged media outlet of their time. In the early- to mid-eighties, newspapers seemed to have endless amounts of cash (simply listen to the whinging reporter or resident old person in your news room for tales of 'the old days' and how they had money and expenses thrown at them).

Then, the bubble starts to burst.

The financial slowdown has hit both industries hard. Football clubs, not in the Premier League but elsewhere, have gone into administration, with Premier League clubs soon to follow.

Newspapers too have closed, offices have shut, central 'hubs' created and printing presses sold off.

However, while we criticise the football clubs for the way they are run, surely it is only a matter of scale?

Take a look at the stories regarding West Ham recently. Their new owners came out in the press, berating previous incumbents for employing doctors at £200,000 a pop, players on mad money and giving everyone at the club a mobile phone. They didn't even know what some people did, they claimed, while pledging to make sweeping changes.

Now look around your newsroom. I bet there are people there that seem to do nothing. Nothing.

I bet there are part-time reporters, more-often feature writers, who come in for two or three days a week, churn out a couple of press releases and go home.

Alas, perhaps the biggest source of your not-doing-anything-but-being-paid-a-lot ligger, is in middle management.

Cuts have taken their toll on this much-maligned worker, however, we are still deluged with managing editors / content editors / assistant editors / editors-in-chief etc.

Yet where have the biggest losses come? Reporting staff, no question.

So why are we so bemused at the collapse of newspapers?

Football clubs are disappearing nowhere near as quickly as newspapers. Why? Because they aren't making their players redundant, they are losing those not-needed doctors, managers and mind-helpers...

Players are the club's assets, as are reporters. Good ones.

So, a piece of advice for newspaper groups; don't immediately cut reporters, or see them as cannon fodder.

Instead, walk up to everyone in your office and ask a simple question: "What are you doing today? In fact, right now?"

Anyone who gives you a blank look, or says they are catching up on things, should be given a notice immediately.

Also, anyone with a title with the main factor being "special products" or "special projects", yep, get in the dole queue too my son.

Get rid of these people, usually paid double that of a decent trainee, reinvest some of it in staff, some to prop up the profits and you're laughing.

The point is, I believe newspapers DO have the resources to provide really good coverage - just as good as in 'the old days' - only they choose to distribute these resources in completely the wrong ways.

Probably because those who would make this decision would lose their own job...