Genuine sports criticism is a cornerstone of sports development; it is a conscious act based on professional analysis and constructive logic that dissects events and sheds light on issues with the scale of knowledge, not with the scale of bias and affiliations. However, this concept is almost lost today amidst the clamor of noisy media, where analytical studios have become something akin to arenas for defending club colors, where representatives of their respective clubs sit rather than neutral critics. The scene has devolved into mere chatter and verbal sparring, where the loudest voice prevails over the strongest argument, and the truth is lost amidst applause and partisanship.
General context: How did we reach the dominance of “representative media”?
This phenomenon didn't emerge in a vacuum; it's the product of profound transformations in the sports media industry over the past two decades. With the shift from print journalism, which offered more space for in-depth analysis, to the era of open satellite channels and social media, the rules of the game changed. Sensationalism and controversy became the currency for attracting viewers and generating engagement. In this climate, the passionate and ardent representative of their club found greater prominence than the objective analyst whose opinions might be complex or unpopular. Sports programs began seeking those who would create controversy rather than those who would offer knowledge, leading to the marginalization of expert and specialized voices.
The importance of the event and its expected impact: Beyond a mere television program
The dominance of “representation” discourse at the expense of “analysis” is not merely a flaw in media taste, but a deviation from the fundamental function of sports media, and it has serious repercussions on several levels:
- At the local level, this approach deepens polarization and fanaticism among fans. Instead of the media serving as a tool to educate supporters and raise awareness about issues such as club governance and financial sustainability, it becomes a vehicle for inflaming emotions and fueling conspiracy theories. Major issues are reduced to stark dichotomies: (white/black, with us/against us, justice/conspiracy), management is reduced to personalities, planning to results, and development to transfers.
- At the regional level: In a region passionate about football, this type of discourse can damage relations between fans of different clubs, turning fair competition into animosity. It also presents an unprofessional image of the sporting system as a whole, at a time when regional leagues are striving to attract global attention and foreign investment, which requires a mature media environment.
Flattening awareness and obscuring fundamental issues
When the profound question, “Why did this happen? What are its structural causes? And what is its future impact?” is absent, and replaced by a single question, “Who won and who is to blame?”, understanding shrinks in favor of emotion. The discussion becomes captive to the moment, disconnected from accumulation and comparative analysis. Questions related to governance, sustainability, age-group development, and risk management are postponed or marginalized because they don't generate much controversy. The audience, the most crucial element, receives emotionally charged content devoid of methodology. With the repetition of this pattern, cognitive patterns are formed based on alignment rather than critical examination. They tend to believe what aligns with their sporting identity and reject what contradicts it, not based on argument but on affiliation.
Breaking the deadlock: Towards responsible sports media
The solution lies not in suppressing opinions or stifling enthusiasm, but in restoring the value of critical analysis. This requires an institutional awareness that sports programming is not an arena for conflict, but a platform for knowledge building. This can be achieved by broadening the guest list to include specialists (tactical analysts, sports management experts, legal professionals), fostering a culture of inquiry, establishing rules for dialogue, and separating opinion from fact. When criticism returns to its original purpose—a quest for truth, not self-aggrandizement—sports regains its meaning as a field for development, not squabbles. And when analysis is presented as a moral and intellectual responsibility, not merely a performative act, the impact of discourse on public awareness transforms from fleeting excitement to profound understanding, and from momentary noise to lasting value.
