3 ms·

The best paid football players aren't easily replaced with cheaper talent though. Top clubs will need to compete against other top clubs, so e.g. a striker with

The best paid football players aren't easily replaced with cheaper talent though. Top clubs will need to compete against other top clubs, so e.g. a striker with better performance is going to be heavily in demand and can make a lot of difference to the success of the club. Arguably, news readers aren't critical to the success of the news broadcast (the content probably makes far more difference), though I can see that presenters can make a big difference to the popularity of shows. I've got nothing against Gary Lineker (quite like him, but rarely watch him on telly), but I do object to being "forced" to pay for his excessive salary when they should be helping younger, unknown talent to get exposure etc.

permo-w 1y ago
the issue is that Gary Lineker does a spectacularly good job, and the unknown talent they've been bringing through are by and large unwatchable. it's a moot point now because he's gone, and whatever, I'm glad the psychodrama is over, but I'd much rather be "forced" to pay his salary and enjoy the show, than not be "forced" to and instead be forced to watch some people who'd do a better job reading the news. imo they should have taken his salary and used it to poach Dave Jones from Sky or even Kate Scott from CBS. why should the country's most popular football show not have the best presenter available?