Candidates tipped to replace Gary Lineker as Match of the Day presenter are on “red alert” after a leaked email suggested the host’s time on the show could be coming to an end.

The BBC insists nothing has been agreed over Gary Lineker’s future after reports suggested it was preparing to end his 25-year spell as host of the flagship football show.

Lineker, who is the BBC’s highest-paid presenter with an annual salary of £1.35 million, is understood to be in talks with the broadcaster’s chiefs as his contract expires at the end of this football season.

However a Daily Mail report that it had seen a draft BBC email suggesting Saturday would be Lineker’s final appearance as Match of the Day host, even though his contract had many months to run, sent shockwaves through the BBC Sport department. The BBC did not confirm whether the email was genuine or not.

Insiders said the speculation had given fresh urgency to discussions over a succession plan for Lineker, whenever he does leave.

Jermaine Jenas, who was seen as Lineker’s natural successor, is out of the picture after being sacked by the BBC following complaints about his conduct.

Match of the Day 2 presenter Mark Chapman is now considered to be in pole position to take over the Saturday night show. Other contenders include Gabby Logan and Alex Scott, the former England Lioness.

A BBC insider said: “Even if there is no imminent change it’s placed Gary’s possible replacements on red alert. Jenas’s exit has opened up the race and Mark Chapman would be a popular choice.”

The figure added: “It’s possible there might not be one lead presenter, duties could be shared between two. TV rights deals mean the biggest Premiership matches are split between Saturday and Sunday anyway.”

Chapman, 50, selected as a main presenter of the BBC’s new midweek UEFA Champions League highlights programme, along with Logan, could expect a significant uplift on his £260,000 salary.

Logan, one of the first female sports anchors to break into terrestrial television, has covered several Olympic Games, the World Cup and the Commonwealth Games during her 17 years at the BBC.

She and Chapman joined forces this year to front a new podcast, The Sports Agents, produced by the team behind Emily Maitlis’s daily show, The News Agents.

The BBC said speculation over Lineker’s immediate future was inaccurate. A BBC spokesman said: “We have nothing to announce and we have not agreed next steps with regard to his contract. He is under contract until the end of the season.”

The spokesperson added that Saturday night’s MoTD would be “as billed.” Lineker is “under contract and presenting.”

The leaked email was said to be from Alex Kay-Jelski, the BBC’s director of sport, and its contents suggest that this Saturday would be Lineker’s last appearance on Match of the Day.

It reportedly included a tribute from Tim Davie, BBC Director-General, describing Lineker as a “world-class presenter.” Mailonline, which first reported the email, said it could not vouch for its authenticity.

Lineker, 63, who has fronted MoTD since 199, has said he has no plans to give up presenting the Saturday highlights show, and would be doing so for at least “another year”.

A recent report in The Sun suggested he was in talks with the BBC over a renewal of his multi-year deal, which concludes next Summer, with the presenter willing to take a £350,000 pay cut.

Lineker has extensive outside interests, including his stake in Goalhanger Productions, the podcast company behind hit shows including The Rest Is Politics.

One of its biggest moneyspinners is The Rest Is Football, a series featuring fellow MoTD pundits Alan Shearer and Micah Richards.

Lineker has previously presented a quiz show for ITV and could expect interest from Amazon Prime Video and TNT Sport to present football coverage, should he become a free agent.

He would also be free to share his political opinions with much less scrutiny, after being briefly suspended by the BBC last year over tweets that criticised the Conservative government’s immigration policy.

Chapman and Logan were named joint favourites to replace Lineker by William Hill on Friday. Ex-Manchester City defender Richards and Alex Scott were also in contention, followed by Clare Balding and Jason Mohammad, according to the bookmaker.

Lineker’s representatives were approached for comment.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Meta is showcasing artificial intelligence models that can generate realistic videos from text instructions, which will compete with rival offerings for filmmakers and content creators from OpenAI and Runway.

Movie Gen is a suite of storytelling models that can be used for a range of tasks, such as generating videos up to 16 seconds long, video editing, matching sounds to videos and personalising video with specific images.

The Instagram and Facebook owner plans to offer video-generation tools to the Hollywood filmmakers, artists and influencers who make content on its social networks. OpenAI announced its own video-generation model, Sora, in February, and has been showing it off to the film industry, although it has not yet been released as a product. 

While Meta released some examples of videos generated by its models on Friday, it said it did not anticipate the models being integrated into its platforms for users until next year at the earliest. 

“Right now . . . if you were using a video editing or video-generation feature in Instagram, that would probably not meet your expectations of how fast you would want something like that to be,” said Connor Hayes, vice-president of generative AI products at Meta. “But broadly speaking, you could imagine these models being really powerful for things like Reels creation, Reels editing across the family of apps, and that’s the direction that we’re looking at for where we can apply it.” Reels is Instagram’s video creation and sharing feature.

The video-generation push is part of an effort by tech companies to make tools that can be used more broadly in the entertainment industry, including advertising, as they look for ways to monetise their AI advancements. Runway, an AI video-generation start-up, signed a deal last month with entertainment company Lionsgate to train a custom model on its library of films, including Twilight and The Hunger Games.

Meta claimed its videos surpassed its rivals, such as Sora and Runway, for “overall quality, motion, naturalness and consistency”, citing blind human evaluations.

Its models were trained on “a combination of licensed and publicly available data sets”, Meta said, but would not give further details. It has used public content from its platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, for its AI previously.

The realistic nature of AI-generated videos — and the ability to replicate people’s likeness within them — has caused concerns from workers, including actors and production staff, as to how tools may affect their jobs in future.

“While there are many exciting use cases for these foundation models, it’s important to note that generative AI isn’t a replacement for the work of artists and animators,” Meta said, emphasising that it would continue to seek feedback from filmmakers and creators. 

Meta said it would watermark any videos generated by the model in order to avoid copyright concerns and issues that might arise with deepfakes. “These are many of the challenges that we’re going to have to work through before we can responsibly put a product out there, and that’s also a big part of why this is purely a research announcement right now,” Hayes added. 

Do you remember all those awkward job interview questions?

I’m thinking of pearls such as: ‘Where do you see yourself in five years’ time?’ (Not here); ‘Why do you want to work in this industry?’ (I can’t get a job in my preferred field); and ‘Why should we hire you?’ (I desperately need the cash).

But, for me, the most annoying by far is, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’

Of course, it’s not difficult to answer – I can reel off several weaknesses without breaking a sweat. But it can be hard to think of a weakness that doesn’t undermine your claim to the role. After all, who’s going hire someone who’s lazy, unpunctual and selfish (except maybe Donald Trump)?

However, when grumbling about this loaded question to a friend, she surprised me by coming up with the perfect answer: public speaking.

“It’s something everyone can relate to,” she pointed out. “No one will judge you negatively for it and you can use it as an example of personal growth (i.e. I’ve sought to tackle the fear by volunteering for speaking opportunities, training courses, etc).”

If public speaking was ever a fear when I was younger, it’s one I’ve had to confront in my professional life

You can’t fault the logic, and it got me thinking: have I ever been afraid of public speaking?

As a naturally shy person, the answer must be ‘yes’. I certainly remember being very nervous if I ever had to stand up in front of a class or in school assembly. But if public speaking was ever a fear when I was younger, it’s one I’ve had to confront in my professional life.

As a journalist, I’ve done countless speeches, presentations, panel discussions and onstage interviews. I’ve addressed rooms filled with people hanging on my every word (or at least pretending to). And I’ve had to deal with the terror of clamming up, forgetting my train of thought, making a faux pas – all in front of a packed audience.

Make no mistake, this can be a genuine terror. “Most people fear public speaking more than death,” says Dan Graham of NextGen Planners, whose Speaker & Influencer Programme has trained over 300 finance professionals to overcome this fear since its launch in 2019.

According to Graham, public speaking is a crucial and undervalued skill: “The majority of financial advisers are required to have an influence on their clients every day. By developing their message and their confidence, they can convey important ideas more succinctly.

“From those we have worked with on our programme, the increase in confidence has not only allowed them to deliver their key messages to the world, but also to come out of their shells and let their influence come to the surface.”

The results, claims Graham, have been transformational: “New friendships have been formed, new businesses have been found, client service has improved and those doubting their careers have stayed in the profession.”

By contrast, those who lack the confidence to speak in public miss the opportunity to make these connections. “It means their great ideas are, often, not being heard,” says Graham.

Most people fear public speaking more than death

All of this has been on my mind recently, with the Money Marketing Awards having taken place last month (I did the introductory speech) and MMI London and MMI Leeds coming up soon (I’m opening proceedings and chairing panels at both).

Admittedly, I don’t know how many of my ‘great ideas’ have been shared via public speaking at events such as these. But I do know that speaking in front of people has given me a better sense of myself – how I sound to others, how I communicate and how my personality comes across.

Stated another way, it puts my strengths and weaknesses up in lights for all to see. This can be daunting, but it’s also empowering. Becoming a better public speaker has definitely improved my one-on-one skills, which makes me a better interviewer and networker. It may even have improved my writing (although you, dear reader, can be the judge of that).

And on good days, it plays to the other side of my personality. The truth is, I’m a bit of a show off. As part of my am-dram group, in particular, I love playing to the crowd, making people laugh, feeding off an audience. Those backstage moments can be terrifying, but when it all goes well, it’s the best kind of validation and a huge confidence boost.

So, if public speaking is a step outside the comfort zone for you, don’t be afraid to take that step. In the words of the motivational speaker Rob Brown, “If you can speak, you can influence. If you can influence, you can change lives.”

AMID the chaos of the escalating conflict in the Middle East, several flights to and from Dubai have been cancelled or delayed.

Here we take a look at whether it is safe to travel to the area, which airlines are affected and how flight paths have changed so far.

2

Are flights going to and from Dubai?

Flights are still operating to and from Dubai, but with significant disruptions due to the spiralling regional tensions.

Dubai International Airport, the world’s busiest for international travel, is experiencing cancellations and delays.

Airlines cancelling and diverting flights

Several major airlines have been affected:

• Emirates cancelled all flights to and from Iraq, Iran and Jordan between Wednesday, October 2, 2024 and Saturday, October 5.
• Flydubai has also cancelled flights to these destinations.
• Emirates has suspended routes to and from Beirut until Tuesday, October 8, while Flydubai has suspended them until Monday, October 7.
• British Airways, Lufthansa and Swiss Air have diverted flights headed to Dubai and other Middle Eastern destinations.
• Etihad Airways is rerouting flights and warning of likely delays and cancellations.

Safety of travelling to Dubai

The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) does not advise against travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), including Dubai.

However, they recommend staying vigilant, stating: “Terrorists are likely to try to carry out attacks in the UAE”.

The FCDO further advises: “Ongoing hostilities between Israel and Lebanon could escalate quickly and pose risks for the wider region. Monitor this travel advice and other media as the situation is changing fast”.

They also note that “Military activity in the Red Sea area” poses a security risk, with the “possibility that Travel Advice for nearby countries could change at short notice”.

Changes in flight paths

Flight paths changed significantly on Tuesday, October 1, 2024. Here are the diversions which were put in place:

• Many flights avoided airspace over Iran, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.
• Airlines diverted flights through alternative routes, which led to longer flight times.
• Traffic became dense over Istanbul, Cairo, and Antalya as flights rerouted to avoid certain areas.
• Some flights took wide arcs to the north and south to avoid affected airspace.
• These diversions added several hours to flight times.

According to FlightRadar, 81 flights were diverted by 16 airlines on October 1, when Iran launched its attack on Israel.

2

Additional travel advice

Visitors should remember to respect local laws when travelling in the UAE.

The FCDO advises: “Take care when walking or travelling alone, and use a reputable taxi company, particularly if you are female, and at night. Do not accept lifts from strangers”.

Travellers should also be aware that UAE airports have strict security measures for detecting illegal items, including in transit passengers’ baggage.

Even residual trace amounts of illegal drugs can lead to arrest and imprisonment.

Those flying within the region are strongly advised to check with their airlines for the most up-to-date information and to be prepared for potential last-minute changes or extended delays.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

As an anthropological study of the political tribes, I found this year’s UK party conferences intriguing. Labour, urban and blokeish, are bizarrely miserable despite being in power. The Tories, shambling and earnest, are weirdly upbeat, relieved to be out of office. The unexpectedly large number of young men and women in Birmingham was perhaps testament to the fact that politics is exciting when you have a chance to change it. 

With four candidates vying to lead the Conservatives, a common argument — put forcefully by former West Midlands mayor Andy Street — is that the party needs to find the centre ground. But where is it? In an age of polarisation and identity politics, does it even exist?

The idea that parties win from the centre dominated postwar political thinking. Bill Clinton extolled the “vital centre”, a phrase coined by Arthur Schlesinger in 1948 to describe a middle way between fascism and communism. Tony Blair’s Third Way ideology was a muscular version of what Harold Macmillan, in his 1938 book The Middle Way, described as a means of blocking off the “extremes” of collectivism, on the one hand, and laissez-faire individualism on the other. 

Centrism, on these definitions, is moderate and pragmatic. It sits midway between two extremes — and political strategists expend a great deal of energy working out how to split the difference. The assumption is that the majority of voters sit in the “centre”. But what if they don’t? 

Some interesting analysis of 2020 polling data by Matteo Tiratelli, of University College London, challenges the idea that most Britons hold moderate political opinions on most issues. When asked whether the government should try to make incomes equal, for example, as many people agree very strongly as put themselves in the middle; with almost as large a group disagreeing completely. 

It’s also possible that commentators mistake where the centre is. Many prominent people who describe themselves as “centrist” are, broadly speaking, Remainers who care about the environment, believe that business and immigration are generally a force for good, are socially liberal and want government to play a positive role in the world through aid and diplomacy.  

They assume that a majority of voters are like them. But what if they’re wrong? What if many voters think those people have been shoring up the status quo in their own interests — with cheap money making the rich richer, the costs of the green transition loaded on to energy bills, tech companies selling misery and mass immigration putting intolerable strain on public services? 

The 2008 financial crash shook faith in free markets. And widespread discontent showed up in 2016, in the US election of Donald Trump and the UK’s vote for Brexit. A new gulf was revealed between voters with and without university degrees. Were people who voted for Trump and Brexit victims of disinformation, misled by populists? Or did their material circumstances lead them to issue a riposte to those who conflated their own world view with the virtuous centre?

Moderate centrism has lost its energy. Political dynamism now lies with angry, single-issue movements like Just Stop Oil. In this summer’s general election, the combined share of the vote for Britain’s two main political parties, both run by moderate technocrats, was the lowest in our era. Offered a wider range of options, the electorate gave significant backing to Reform UK and the Greens. The fact that Reform UK came second to Labour in so many seats suggests that the desire for drastic immigration control is not “rightwing”, but mainstream — just as concerns about the environment may no longer be “leftwing”. 

If centrism means anything, it must mean decency, respect for facts and pluralism. These are the lifeblood of democracy, and worth fighting for. In 2022, Sir Keir Starmer claimed that Labour was “now firmly in the centre ground of British politics”. He also asserted that this was “not a place of mushy compromise”. Centrism don’t have to feel soggy, but it has to be more than technocracy.

Where does this leave the Conservatives? David Cameron’s leadership-winning conference speech in Blackpool 19 years ago was remarkable not because he delivered it without notes but because he looked like the future. He challenged his party to be “comfortable with modern Britain” and to believe that the “best days lie ahead”. Those words still resonate today. 

None of the current candidates to lead the Tories is in Cameron’s league. But the job of whoever wins is not to run the country — it is to reestablish trust in the Conservatives as decent and competent. If that is even possible, it can only be done with humour and optimism, not with anger. I also don’t see how it can be achieved by anyone who served in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, which rules out James Cleverly and Robert Jenrick.

The current debate within the Conservative party is between those who think elections are won in a virtuous centre and those, like the late Keith Joseph, architect of Thatcherism, who once derided the middle ground as the lowest common denominator. Joseph preferred what he called “the common ground”: a place which better reflected people’s real values and aspirations. This does not have to mean the Liz Truss “moron premium”. It does mean Conservatives working out what they are in politics for. That would be a good start.

camilla.cavendish@ft.com