One of the common moans about English football is that everything feels homogenous these days. Teams play the same style of football. Stadiums are identikit bowls. Clubs play in away kits that don’t particularly feel like their colours.
So among clubs becoming increasingly indistinguishable from one another, one small element of Premier League football is a complete free-for-all: the commentary used on the highlights packages for clubs’ respective YouTube channels.
Here, there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever about the right thing to do. Should you use a standard feed of ‘neutral’ television commentary? Should you use a dedicated club commentator? Should you use the club’s dedicated radio commentary and overlay it on the pictures? Should you use local BBC radio commentary?
For the bigger clubs, the standard approach is to use a dedicated in-house commentator specifically for the video highlights. These are generally freelancers who pop up elsewhere doing ‘neutral’ commentary, and therefore you might be familiar with their voice. The most obvious example is Alistair Mann, a Match of the Day veteran, now Manchester City’s regular commentator.
This is presumably the most expensive way to do things, and therefore the most professional way to do things. It sounds broadly like ‘normal’ commentary but inevitably has a club-orientated twist; goals for the relevant club are greeted with particular excitement, but there’s no screaming or celebrating, or any sign that the commentator wants the club to win (if indeed they do).
(Alex Pantling/Getty Images)
Equally, opposition goals are treated professionally; a matter-of-fact acknowledgment, but no decrying the unfairness. There’s a quiet dignity about Liverpool’s in-house commentator commentating on Manchester City’s third goal last weekend with a simple, “That’s a moment of magic from Jeremy Doku.” No further compliments, no reflection on what it means for Liverpool, no replay required. Onto the next clip.
It feels like, in 2025, this should be the standard approach. But no!
Some clubs take an entirely different path, and use the local BBC radio commentary. Without even getting into the detail of the commentary on the game, this brings a completely different vibe. There’s no smooth introduction to the video, generally no lineup graphic or run-down of the team news. Straight into the action.
There are many who prefer radio commentary to television commentary; muting the television and turning on the radio was once a popular concept and even provided as an ‘official’ option via the BBC red button. Problems with syncing up audio and video, though, generally made it tricky.
Here, there are no such problems. The commentary, of course, is busier and more descriptive. You’ll hear phrases like “… gets the ball on the corner of the box” which is clearly needless when we can see the pictures. But it feels more action-packed, more intense. And the fact this is the actual commentary, the type that was once broadcast only in one specific region, over the wireless, makes this curiously thrilling. There are regional accents. There is crowd noise. You feel involved. There’s both the added tension that comes from radio commentary, when you can’t see the action, with the benefit of the fact you actually can see the action. It’s magic.
Often there’s a highly professional main commentator paired with a former player who theoretically adds the insight, but really adds the passion. Newcastle United, for example, have local BBC commentator Matthew Raisbeck, backed up by former Newcastle defender John Anderson. This results in, for example, the absolutely perfect combination of the former describing the chance below, and the latter providing the outcome, with an outburst which is both unhinged and entirely reasonable.
Then there’s the similar — but yet somehow entirely different — situation of a purely in-house commentator, for supporters listening to purely audio commentary online. And whereas commentators on BBC Newcastle (or equivalent) have to stay relatively professional, being employed directly by the club means a somewhat less restrained style.
The outstanding example comes at Fulham. Now, it’s fair to acknowledge some level of anti-‘big club’ bias here, because an overwhelmingly partisan commentator for a title challenger would be quite grating for a neutral viewer. But at Fulham, who we traditionally think of as a pleasant, amiable, inoffensive club, who are mocked for having placid fans and whose quaint old ground had (at one point) a ‘neutral’ section, there’s the least neutral commentator in the Premier League.
He is known exclusively as Gentleman Jim, and Jim does not hold back. In his commentary of Harry Wilson’s goal against Chelsea late last year, he just about manages to prevent himself calling Pedro Neto a very rude word in the build-up, then just about refrains from telling him to ‘eff off’ in the aftermath.
Another derby, another @harrywilson_ goal. 🪄 pic.twitter.com/2kkSXJmt7O
— Fulham Football Club (@FulhamFC) December 26, 2024
This is, by no means, an outlier. In Fulham’s Championship match at Cardiff a few years ago, Jim’s commentary evolved into a running argument with a nearby home supporter over an elbow by a Cardiff defender on a Fulham forward. As ever, Jim is on the brink of swearing on air. “Have a look at the replay again and see what you think of that, you…”, he says to the fan, before stopping himself. As the supporter seemingly protests that the referee didn’t see the incident, Jim replies with, “So you can go up to their goalkeeper and cut his throat and as long as the referee doesn’t see it, that’s alright, is it?” The supporter is barely audible to listeners. This doesn’t seem to matter.
Jim really comes alive for derbies. His commentary for Harry Wilson’s winner against Brentford last season was notably wild. “Now go on! Off you go! Yes, Fulham!” he shouts. “Harry Wilson with a header… have some of that! Now they’re moaning, what are they moaning about? That’s Keith Andrews, he hates Fulham anyway. That’s it. Referee, you can blow your whistle any time you like. We go above them in the table… get back to the bus stop. I’ll be down to Morrison’s tomorrow with my Fulham shirt on, and they can have it all day long.”
Is this big? Is it clever? Perhaps not. And we don’t want this from literally every in-house commentator, because there’s a point that this kind of thing becomes too performative, and too extreme, and too much of an attempt ‘to go viral’, and the increased use of actually filming commentators starts to veer dangerously close to the ‘fan tv’ YouTube channels that clubs don’t need to replicate. But Gentleman Jim doesn’t seem concerned about any of that. He just hates Brentford.
And besides, this remains something of a novelty — because if you head across to the opposite side of London and listen to the West Ham commentary, for example, it’s simply taken from the world feed. You might get, say, Martin Tyler and Andy Townsend. It’s like returning to normal life. And this is particularly fascinating if the team is struggling, as West Ham often are, because whereas bespoke commentary would put a positive spin on things, the world feed is completely honest. Here’s the introduction for the highlights package from their recent home match with Newcastle:
“The London Stadium is bathed in meteorological sunshine, but metaphorical black cloud. The fans tense, the atmosphere restless, concern compounded on a weekly basis during a dismal opening quarter to the campaign that has cast the Hammers in a central role in the impending relegation battle. All four of their opponents here in east London have capitalised, can Newcastle do likewise?”
And this is all entirely fair enough, but in a world of twee social media output and bland club statements, it’s very funny for a club to be broadcasting a commentary line which is so damning about their performance, and almost anticipating another defeat. As it happens, West Ham won this game 3-1.
What’s the best approach? To a certain extent, it’s a matter of individual taste. But really, there is no correct answer. Twenty Gentleman Jims would be terrible. Twenty clubs using the world feed would be boring. The beauty is in the concept that increasingly feels absent in top-level football: variety.