Mark Lawrenson and his assertions are false and damaging – opinion
Mark Lawrenson, the former Football Focus pundit, recently spoke to The Sunday Times about his departure from the BBC.
When asked by Paul Rowan for his own take on why he was “really” no longer at the BBC he shrugged and told his interviewer: “I’m 65 and a white male, so you know…”
These comments come not only at a confusing time but are baseless and reductionist. They alone are all we need to understand why he no longer works there.
From his playing days, Lawrenson boasts an impressive trophy cabinet. It is full of international caps, league titles and even a European Cup (we now call that the Champions League).
Throw in a media career that spanned more than three decades and considering his off-camera popularity, it is no surprise that “Lawro” retains sway among former colleagues.
However, many of the words in his weekend interview were undeserving of this.
Particularly frustrating is Lawrenson’s self-categorising as “anti-woke”.
He doesn’t offer any clarity as to how this is. But then when your claims are largely baseless that is a hard thing to do.
“The woke thing drives me bonkers,” he laments.
“Whereas normally you would say the first thing that comes into your head, you’re now thinking, ‘If I say that will I get into trouble?’ It was a bit like playing with your legs tied together.”
Oh!
Such woe this man must suffer!
Poor Mark. How the nation grieves for him.
Imagine if the rest of us had to think before we spoke!
And what a terrible proposition it must be for a broadcaster, of all people, to apply, of all things, a filter between what goes on in the brain and what comes out of the mouth. What a chore. What labour.
As Sisyphus must relentlessly climb the mountain, so must Mark Lawrenson relentlessly think before he speaks.
It is clearly preposterous and this kind of lazy conjecture does more harm than good in the fight against so-called wokeness. In 2022, such sweeping, unsubstantiated claims only stand to further the calls for fewer 60+ white male broadcasters to be granted space on our screens.
This is a point he will have likely missed.
In the interview, Lawrenson also shines some light on his attitude towards Alex Scott when she first embarked on presenting duties at Football Focus.
While he goes on to praise Scott for the job she would end up doing, the forewords are laced with criticism and resentment. He talks of frustration when wanting to say something but not being able to because she was “just learning”.
It appears that in his eyes, Alex Scott, a young black female broadcaster cutting her teeth in a high-profile role, was unworthy of his tolerance and understanding. Why?
Lawrenson seems oblivious to the notion that at any stage of his life he too was on a learning curve. Would he have expected such hostility from (mostly white male) colleagues at this time?
In another coincidence (or perhaps not) Scott, who is still only 37, made revelations of her own last week. She opened up about how her aforementioned age, gender and ethnicity led to such horrific abuse that at times she feared for her life.
In juxtaposition, the notion that Mark Lawrenson feels his own age (65) and ethnicity (white) affected his employability at the BBC seems nonsensical and unworthy of consideration.
This, of course, would be unfair. Scott’s battles shouldn’t deter us from taking any genuine claims Lawrenson may have seriously.
The issue here lies with the word genuine.
Readers familiar with the BBC’s superb and sensitive coverage of the Queen’s funeral last weekend are probably aware the corporation still hasn’t fired David Dimbleby, a white man who works at the corporation and will be 84 next month.
Oh, and Frozen Planet 2 recently joined the pantheon of great nature documentaries curated on “The Beeb” by national treasure Sir David Attenborough, 96.
Are we to assume Mark Lawrenson was sacked for being 65 and white while others weren’t? If true, this would be a case for an employment tribunal, not the Sunday papers.
The reality is that these broadcasters, while male and white, have moved with the times and the appropriate cultural trends that Lawrenson has refused to embrace.
In 2014 David Dimbleby might well have suggested that Josip Drmić “should put on a skirt” after failing to score a flamboyant chip against Argentina.
But would accept that in 2022 such talk is not appropriate.
The same cannot be said of Lawrenson.
Furthermore, Lawrenson’s punditry has long been below the standard now expected in the British broadcast media. During a fairly dull game between Côte d’Ivoire and Brazil at the 2010 World Cup, his analysis was that fans partaking in a Mexican Wave were “muppets”.
Why, Lawro? Because football isn’t fun and we must all wallow in misery and cynicism and not enjoy it?
His work hasn’t always been done with racist tendencies, sexist undertones or a needless penchant for contempt either.
It has also been misinformed and wide of the mark.
In a column about performance enhancing drugs he once proclaimed that footballers didn’t need them because endurance wasn’t as important to footballers as it was to athletes.
Not only does this ignore the fact that substances can improve performance in other ways but it half implies that endurance isn’t a factor in football at all…
Ridiculous.
It is harmful for Lawrenson’s case that his departure from Football Focus has in no discernible way affected viewing figures. When Rowan claims Lawrenson is among a group of broadcasters who were, in their own opinion, shown the door prematurely by the BBC he is exactly right.
Because this is Lawrenson’s own opinion and no one else’s.
He, of course, still has the right to express this sentiment but he has entirely missed the point in doing so. As a professional footballer and then a commentator and pundit he has been in an incredibly privileged position for all of his working life
It is ultimately impossible for a white man with these kinds of privileges to play the race card, particularly when the corporation he has worked at for many years has been disproportionately lacking BAME on-screen talent.
Hugh Woozencroft offers a stark picture. When his article was published he notes that 0% of the hundreds of hours of Wimbledon and 6 Nations coverage was hosted by a black presenter.
It is now time to diversify and the deadwood must make way.
Anyone resistant to modernisation only stands to be left behind.
As for his age, the Attenboroughs and Dimblebys of this world prove that in broadcasting age is just a number. At least for those at the top of their game.
In failing to reach anything remotely resembling such a summit, when truly working out why he is no longer on Football Focus, Lawro need only look at his own attitudes.
Not his age or the colour of his skin.
Had Mark Lawrenson gone about his privileged work with a smile on his face, an open mind and appropriate awareness of shifting cultural norms, we may still be seeing him on our screens rather than enduring further choler in the occasional attention-seeking printed interview.
