[matthieu1221]

(Responding to the last paragraph)

Oh dear, we're now calling for a review to punish the entire Sports team are we?

Fact is, EVERY SINGLE PART of what BBC does could be done by the open market. Just that the BBC can in theory do it without external interference which a commercial channel may not be able to for various reasons. Unfortunately the government hasn't taken it upon itself to in effect interfere with the BBC leading to all this.

It's childish to view things through the lens of punishment or reward.

You misunderstood the point.  Making programmes on anything is fine, it's straw man argument to say anything is available in market.

Sport mentioned  have specific macro economics. Generally it's a ticket and goods sale business, and a performance for which rights are sold. There a plenty of buyers for these rights and benefits for choosing  certain bidders for rights (game marketing etc) choose a paywall and interest in your sport can decline - cricket springs to mind.

The content generated by sports coverage isn't particularly unique,  and the underlying rights to the material aren't the broadcasters. So what does the BBC bring that's unique?  Nothing for the major sports.  It plays a far more important role with minor sports and developing leagues such as woman's football.

Nearly everything else the BBC does - except online news - adds something unique to the content or adds to the BBC (Strictly may be a generic talent show but the rights bring cash to the BBC)

For Football,  this whole debacle reveals a department and talent with out of control ego and expectations. 

The leval of manipulation by vested interests is staggering in this situation. As is the hypocrisy. 

Where was Lineker, Chappel et al when  Marine Croxall was taken off air for breaching impartiality rules?

Yet we are to belive Lineker is some kind of hero to the lower rank BBC staff? Give me a break

It most certainly seemed like you were bringing it up very coincidentally when much of the Sports team is up in arms over how Lineker is being treated so do forgive us if it seems to us that you'd like to water down their role because it looks like you aren't happy with them.

"The leval of manipulation by vested interests is staggering in this situation. As is the hypocrisy. "
Yes, as many posters have pointed out throughout this thread, but very likely in the opposite direction to what you are insinuating.

"Where was Lineker, Chappel et al when  Marine Croxall was taken off air for breaching impartiality rules?"
A nice red herring argument right here. I think this was previously covered in the thread in which posters argued that as Lineker wasn't in news nor current affairs and thus wasn't going to present the news, nor interview Braverman any time soon it wasn't a particular issue. Martine Croxall on the other hand (unless something has changed that we are all unaware of) works in the news department. Her ability to do her job impartially would be at risk if she went on a tirade about the Asylum Plan. Would Lineker's ability to do his job by commenting on something completely irrelevant and which won't be covered on BBC Sports be compromised?