Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains. This is a post about the slim survival chances of British media.. well salary caps will be the nail in the coffin as talent will simply go whey get the best deal.
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.
To be fair, plenty of fans (and the occasional pundit) complain (and have been complaining for years) but unless the authorities get involved (FA, UEFA, FIFA, etc.) and implement proper financial controls (there's some coming in 2025/26 around player salaries but we also need controls on money coming from TV rights, self-sponsorships, etc.) with actual transparent penalties (they're still soft-pedalling City whilst kicking Everton and Forest), nothing will happen.
You understand that what something is called is not always the same as what it is, right?
e.g. how you just called it a tax? you're arguing against yourself
my man, your entire contribution to this discussion has been proxy arguments and rhetorical tricks without ever actually getting to the point of what you really think. who cares if it fits your personal definition of a tax vs someone else's definition of a fee? do you even pay it? and can you just pack in all the sophistry and proxy arguments and have out with your real motivations
are you embarrassed of the real reason you don't like the BBC?
and you didn't answer, do you pay the license fee?
Yes, I pay the license fee. Do you?
Even if I thought the BBC was the most perfect organisation with sublime programming and insightful news coverage, I still wouldn't want it to be the cause of scores of women getting criminal records. You seem to think it a price worth paying though.
my friend let's leave this here, because you know full well how disingenuous you're being, you're just talking nonsense to see what reaction you get
-- your response entirely ignored that engagement entirely besides taking a quote out of context in a weak and obvious attempt to draw moral outrage, more or less proving my point that you were simply using women's rights as a way to produce outrage and scare people into agreeing
to be honest perhaps I was a little quick to judge your motivations, and if you hadn't replied like this, perhaps you might have a leg to stand on, but instead you proved the point for me
whether or not calling it a tax was a rhetorical gambit or not, when pressed, it was instead a "non-voluntary charitable donation", and yet, is watching live TV not a choice? are you so unable to tear your eyes away from the 800th repeat of the Botswana special on Dave? is it "charitable" if the person who "donates" is provided with a consumable product?
can you avoid taxes by simply not letting the taxman in your house? can you avoid taxes by simply living in a house with someone who does pay taxes? can you avoid taxes by simply denying that you earn money?
and then you just started to make childish personal attacks about literacy. boring
And if one group of talent moves on it'll make space for the next generation.
space promptly filled by B or C tier talent as the best go and work elsewhere to get paid appropriately