Growing up I watched football go from an enjoyable game to one of the most convoluted, messy, and complicated games. Here is one of my reasons to explain why it became that way.

This is the last post from my chapter about all the misinformed opinions we see at football studios. Here are the previous three:

• The Difference Between Analysts and Observers

• The Silly Twitter Banter That Explains The Buffoonery In Match Studios

• Entitled Opinions In Football

Previously I talked about all the unqualified opinions in football studios, and how the ones saying them are using their experience as players to fortify them. Before I get to the point of everything I have written so far, I must stop and talk about how those people are seen from the players' perspective.

How Do Players View These Pundits?

In the book "The Secret Footballer", a great book whose author was kept secret to avoid getting sued by clubs or players mentioned identity, it is stated how the players hate these pundits the most.

They don't hate them only because of criticism or how hurtful they are coming from ex-players. Nobody likes getting mocked on TV by a colleague after all. But, also because much of this mockery and criticism is baseless. And those ex-players' pundits know that it is baseless.

For example, they know that the players as a team play out certain scenarios, sometimes blindly. So, when these pundits mock a player for a pass or a cross to no one, they know damn well that they were only following the manager's tactics and instructions. Therefore, it is actually their teammate's fault for not being there. Or, more simply, because their teammate was slowed or obstructed by the opponent.

The Secret Footballer also says that players nowadays are handed a big script with videos ahead of each match detailing their opponents, their weaknesses, strengths, body type, pace, their dribbling style, where they love positioning themselves, how they pass, and relating those details to the opponents' teammates. Such complications made the game turn into chess, so imagining you can untie such knots two minutes after a game is an insanity.

You simply can't say whose fault it is so soon after a game. Often, the managers of teams can't even tell so soon. The funny part is, pundits who used to be players can be the most useful in explaining this, yet, they are the ones doing the opposite.

But, That's Not Their Goal

Here we get to the final part of this whole dilemma. These pundits' goal isn't to help us understand the game, their goal is simply to make us sit that extra half an hour or hour in front of our TVs after a match ends.

As time went by, these ex-players realized that they can't keep us watching while they lacked any useful football knowledge to keep us watching. So, what's now required is a fight on-air, angry rants, or a BURN that could be turned into a soundbite to be shared on Twitter.

This Was Caused By Us

John Nicholson, author of "Can We Have Our Football Back?", says that while writing his book he contacted an executive at one of the broadcasting stations and asked about the reason they don't bring actual analysts. Here's the summary of what the response was:

You and I can't be role models for viewers. Viewers don't care about knowing how a team played. Viewers want to hear an ex-player like Roy Keane criticize a player, calling him lazy say that he needs to be kicked in the arse. Putting the likes of Jonathan Wilson and Gabriele Marcotti is simply a risk we can't take. People want coverage that is simple, strong, and controversial.

This is why I said that I might be the only one with a problem here. That statement is also true as it represents a model that is wildly successful worldwide.

Gary Neville used to make 1.2 million a year from Sky. He went to manage Valencia, won 10 games, drew 7, and lost 11 games including a 7-0 thrashing against Barcelona. After that, he returned to Sky and received a 1.5 salary instead. That's more money made annually than most of his career as a player.

Thierry Henry, my second favorite footballing legend, was a horrible manager by all accounts. He makes 4 million a year from Sky, it is not even an exclusive deal. In total, he is making more as a pundit than he did as a Barcelona player.

In Conclusion

I don't find myself caring anymore about what happens to Gary Neville or Thierry Henry. One way or another, they're just providing supplies for demanded content. I guess whether we agree or disagree it seems that Gary Neville is a great pundit, Thierry Henry is a great pundit, Craig Burley is a great pundit, Danny Mills is a great pundit, and I am pretty sure Jake Livermore will be a great pundit in the future.