Steven Gerrard defends Rangers legend and shuts down pundit’s attempted pile on
Punditry is a strange profession. A group of famous former players sits in front of a camera for a few hours, watches a football match and then talks about it as though they are in a pub, with the difference that millions of people are listening. The format rewards strong opinions, sharp contrasts and the occasional clash, and it punishes anyone who sits on the fence. That is why Steven Gerrard’s brief exchange with Martin Keown during TNT Sports’ coverage of Arsenal’s 2-2 draw with Bayern Munich attracted so much attention. It lasted only a few seconds, it involved a comment that most viewers might have missed, and yet it tells us a good deal about loyalty, about how television works and about the kind of character Gerrard is.
The setting was the Allianz Arena, where Arsenal earned a point in the Champions League thanks to a late equaliser from Declan Rice. Gerrard was in the studio as a pundit, and he had been praising Rice for the quality of his performance and the importance of the goal. As he was in the middle of that tribute, Keown, the former Arsenal defender, interrupted. By the reports of what was said, he tried to bring up the criticism of Rice that Graeme Souness has made in recent weeks, referring to what he called nonsense about the England midfielder not being a top player. It was an invitation, and everyone watching understood what it was. Keown wanted Gerrard to join in a debate about Souness, and perhaps to say something sharp about a colleague who was not in the room.
Gerrard declined. He cut across the comment and told Keown to forget about it, adding that Rice is a world-class midfielder and that his goal had been a top-class one. He then suggested that Keown did not need to make the point because of everything that was going on elsewhere on other shows. The tone was firm but not hostile, and the effect was immediate. The conversation moved back to Arsenal’s performance, the attempted pile-on went nowhere, and the clip began to circulate on social media within minutes. Supporters, including many Liverpool fans, praised Gerrard for refusing to be drawn into a fight with a man who has been a hero to him and to many others who followed in his footsteps at Liverpool and Rangers.
To appreciate why that mattered, it helps to understand the background. Souness has been one of the most outspoken pundits in British football for years, and his remarks about Rice have been among his most controversial. According to reports, he has described the midfielder as limited and a steady Eddie following England’s World Cup exit, and he has argued that Rice would not make the starting lineups of some of Europe’s biggest clubs, including Real Madrid and Barcelona. He has also suggested that the England international is more of a centre-back than a holding midfielder. Those are blunt opinions, delivered in Souness’s usual style, and they have provoked strong reactions from Arsenal supporters and from fellow pundits who regard Rice as one of the best players in his position.
It is worth being clear that Gerrard did not agree with Souness on the substance. He said plainly that Rice is world class, which is the opposite of what Souness has been saying. What he refused to do was use that disagreement as an excuse to criticise a colleague in public. That is a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. A person can disagree with someone strongly and still decline to take part in a pile-on. Gerrard made his own view on Rice absolutely clear, he praised the player’s performance and his goal, and he did so without belittling the man whose opinion he did not share. It is exactly the kind of behaviour that supporters often say they want from their pundits and rarely get.
The loyalty at play is a particular kind. Souness and Gerrard share a remarkable amount of history. Both captained Liverpool at different points in the club’s history, both are regarded as legends at Anfield, and both went on to manage Rangers. Souness arrived at Ibrox as a player-manager in 1986 and helped to transform a club that had been struggling, winning several league titles and changing the way Scottish football thought about signing players from England. Gerrard followed more than three decades later, taking over in 2018 and leading the club to the 2020-21 Scottish Premiership title, with an unbeaten campaign that ended a long wait for supporters. They are linked by more than the fact that they played in midfield. They are part of the same lineage of men who wore the captain’s armband at Liverpool and then took on the challenge of managing Rangers.
That shared background helps to explain Gerrard’s reaction. There is a code among former players, an unwritten understanding that you do not take sides against your own, particularly in public. It does not mean you cannot disagree, and Gerrard obviously did. But it does mean that you pick your moment, and that you do not take pleasure in attacking someone who has been through the same battles. Football has a long memory, and many of the men who work in television know that they will one day be on the receiving end of criticism from someone they respected. A little restraint now can make the whole industry more civilised, and it is a quality that Gerrard seems to understand instinctively.
Keown, for his part, was doing what pundits are paid to do. He was trying to generate a debate, and he picked a topic that he knew would provoke a reaction. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and the format often rewards it. Panels thrive on disagreement, and a studio in which everyone agrees with each other can be dull television. The question is whether the debate is worth having, and in this case, Gerrard evidently decided that it was not. He had a match to analyse, a late equaliser to dissect and a chance to praise a player he rates highly. Turning the conversation into a row about Souness would have taken away from all of that, and it would have turned a good moment into a squabble.
The social media response suggests that many viewers agreed. Some fans said that Keown had been getting ready to fire back at Souness, and that Gerrard had nipped it in the bud. Others joked that Keown had assumed Gerrard would join in a campaign against Souness. A third group simply said that the exchange showed something about Gerrard’s character, because he had stood up for a colleague when it would have been easier to stay quiet. Those reactions are interesting because they reveal what audiences value in a pundit. They like experts who are honest and sharp, but they also like people who show loyalty and good sense. Gerrard did both in the space of a few seconds.
There is a broader point about the culture of football punditry. In recent years, the genre has moved towards a more combative style, with pundits encouraged to make bold statements and to challenge each other on air. That has produced some memorable television, but it has also created an atmosphere in which opinions are sometimes treated as weapons. Clips are shared, comments are stripped of context, and a throwaway remark can become a story for days. In that environment, a pundit who declines to escalate is doing something quietly radical. Gerrard’s response was a reminder that you can be authoritative without being aggressive, and that sometimes the most effective way to win an argument is to refuse to have it.
The substance of the Rice debate deserves some attention too, because it is more interesting than the row suggests. Rice is an England international who has played a central role for Arsenal for several seasons, and his qualities are not hard to describe. He is a strong, mobile midfielder with an excellent engine, he can break up play, carry the ball forward and arrive late in the box, and he has scored important goals, including the one in Munich. Supporters who admire him point to his consistency and his ability to perform in big matches. Critics, like Souness, argue that he lacks the creative flair and tactical sophistication of the very best midfielders in the game. Both views have some merit, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.
That is the nature of football opinion. Players are rarely as good or as bad as the strongest voices suggest, and the debate over where Rice ranks among the world’s midfielders is a legitimate one. A pundit is entitled to say that he does not think a player is good enough for Real Madrid or Barcelona, and another is entitled to disagree. What matters is whether the argument is conducted with respect, and whether it is based on evidence or simply on a desire to provoke. Souness has always been willing to say what he thinks, and he has been proved right on some of his controversial calls and wrong on others. He is not alone in that, and the same could be said of any outspoken analyst.
For Rangers supporters, there is an extra layer of interest in the story. Gerrard and Souness are both revered at Ibrox, and the sight of the two men supporting each other, even indirectly, is a pleasing one. Souness changed the club in the 1980s by bringing in English internationals and challenging Celtic’s dominance, a revolution that supporters still talk about. Gerrard restored the club’s pride in 2021, when he led a team that had been in the wilderness for years to a title that felt almost impossible at the time. Neither man’s tenure was without controversy, but both are remembered with great affection, and any suggestion that they are at odds would sit uneasily with many fans.
It is also worth noting that Gerrard has built a reputation as a thoughtful, generous pundit since his return to television work. He tends to analyse matches in detail, explain tactical ideas clearly and avoid the more sensational lines that some of his colleagues prefer. That approach has won him respect, and it has made him a popular presence on TNT Sports’ Champions League coverage. The exchange with Keown fits that pattern. He did not make a fuss, he did not raise his voice, and he did not claim any moral high ground. He simply moved the conversation on, which is a skill that many people in public life could learn from.
There is a final point about how moments like this are interpreted. The clip of Gerrard and Keown has been shared widely, and many people have read a great deal into it. Some see it as a rebuke, some as an act of loyalty, and some as evidence of a rift within the studio. The reality is probably simpler. Gerrard made a quick judgement about what the conversation needed, and he acted on it. Keown, who is an experienced broadcaster and a respected former defender, took it in his stride. There is no suggestion that the two men fell out, and they will no doubt work together again without any awkwardness. The drama is largely in the eye of the viewer.
Even so, it is a reminder that television is not a neutral medium. What gets said on air, and how it is received, shapes our view of the people involved. A pundit who stands up for a colleague gains the respect of viewers who value loyalty, while one who piles on may attract applause from those who enjoy conflict. Gerrard clearly understands this, and his instinct was to pick the more generous path. In doing so, he reinforced an image that he has been cultivating for years, that of a man who is competitive and honest but also decent. It is an image that serves him well, both as a pundit and as a manager.
In the end, the exchange was a small thing, and it would be a mistake to blow it out of proportion. Nobody was hurt, no great principle was at stake, and the conversation resumed within moments. But small things reveal character, and this one showed that Gerrard is willing to defend a colleague even when it would have been easy to say nothing. It also showed that he is prepared to praise a player he admires without turning the discussion into an argument. Rice scored a late goal in a big match, and Gerrard wanted to talk about that. The rest was noise, and he was wise enough to recognise it.
For Rangers fans, the moment will be a source of quiet pride. Two of their greatest figures, men who have given so much to the club, were involved in a story that ended with one standing up for the other. It is the kind of thing that reminds people why they love football, not for the controversies or the clashes but for the loyalties that sit beneath them. Gerrard has always understood that, and his reaction in Munich was a small but telling example. In a world of hot takes and instant outrage, a bit of restraint is refreshing, and a bit of loyalty is rarer still.
