I am pretty sure that when Gary Lineker posted that tweet about the government's migration bill he couldn't have imagined the furore that would ensue in his wildest dreams.

To be honest, neither can I. As I write this column, the homepages of the BBC, Sky and ITV news websites are dominated by the fallout of the Match of the Day presenter's suspension.

On one hand, this all seems to be one huge overreaction in the BBC taking Lineker off air in response to what can, at worst, be described as a clumsy conflation of the government's language regarding the migration proposals and that of Nazi Germany.

But critics argue Lineker should be held to a higher standard as the de facto face of the BBC (whether he likes it or not) and say the former England striker should not be making partisan political statements on contentious new bills.

Besides, it was only last October that the BBC upheld a complaint regarding an alleged breach of impartiality after Lineker said the Conservatives should hand back donations from Russian sources.

We don't know what clauses are in Lineker's £1.35million BBC freelance contract regarding political statements – the devil will be in the detail – but its Executive Complaints Unit has previously said he has an "additional responsibility" on impartiality because of his profile.

The BBC is tying itself in knots and been forced to cancel sports coverage left, right and centre as Lineker's colleagues pull out of shows to stand in solidarity. But this whole issue, for me, boils down to one key factor – the licence fee.

Anyone wanting to do something as simple and basic as watch some live TV in this country is forced to pay £159 a year. This is a form of poll tax. 

TV licences have been around since 1946, when the broadcasting landscape was very different to what it is today. But in 2023 it's an anachronism and there's a plethora of other non-BBC channels to choose from – some that even charge on top of the licence fee to watch.

Defenders of the licence fee will argue that it allows for brilliant, original programming to be funded. My response would be that any productions worth their salt will be able to stand on their own two feet in the private market.

Any high-level BBC personalities, especially those as big as Lineker, are rightly expected to not attract controversy and 'become the story' when on taxpayers' payroll. Britons are fleeced every year even if they don't watch any BBC content, and in return they demand high standards.

If Gary Lineker was a presenter on Sky Sports, for example, this would hardly be a story. Sky's Gary Neville is a card-carrying member of Labour and spoke at party conference. But Lineker's commitment to the BBC as a publicly-funded broadcaster places him firmly under the microscope.

He has willingly signed up to be the BBC's main man, and if his employer considers him to be in breach of any contract or agreement then that is for the two parties to thrash out.

I don't think he should be sacked and believe he has the right to express what he thinks, although it's difficult to see him return if the BBC is correct in saying his terms say he shouldn't speak out loud on certain issues.

BBC director-general Tim Davie made clamping down on impartiality breaches one of his key aims to when he started in 2020, which suggests why Lineker has been pulled up and others in the past weren't.

In an era of political polarisation this isn't the first impartiality row and surely won't be the last. The BBC has always faced accusations of bias (in both ways) among its presenters and always will as long as it's funded by the taxpayer. 

For this reason, I think the whole Lineker circus will add to an already sizeable contingent of licence fee refuseniks. If the BBC is so great, let it hold its own without the threat of prison for those who want nothing to do with it and just feel like watching some TV.