Football is a game of opinions - so why did the SFA ban BBC's Michael Stewart?

Stewart (centre) regularly provides opinions on matches at Hampden [SNS]

The issuing of bans to pundits and journalists is nothing new, of course.

Football clubs were banning journalists long before broadcasting, never mind VAR.

For clubs in particular, withdrawing access can be a tool used in frustration, but it can also be a way of attempting to control the narrative.

Most football journalists in Scotland will tell you tales of being banned at some point during their careers.

"The reality is that a lot of football clubs would rather people knew nothing at all about their business," said football writer, Stephen McGowan.

"Many of the people who take that view, tend to think there's nothing to be gained by sharing information with journalists because they think depressing media is out to get them.

"But when you create an information vacuum, the media will do what they can to fill it, and that's when you tend to see bans doled out by clubs who just don't like critical reporting and opinion."

Do bans actually work?

In recent years, clubs and governing bodies seem less likely to tolerate opinion from those they see as being paid to report facts.

But in a social media world where anyone can have their say, can those who want to be heard most, sometimes fall foul of taking things too far?

It's a particular pressure point in a podcast world where opinion is often the currency.

The Michael Stewart situation shows broadcasters are far from immune.

BBC Scotland endured a seven year stand-off with Rangers after the club accused me of reporting unfairly.

The corporation was banned by Aberdeen for a time this season and a dispute remains with Celtic, who do not invite the BBC to pre-match media conferences.

STV, Sky and various radio stations across Scotland have all fallen foul of at some point in a world where every syllable is analysed for signs of bias.

Reporters and pundits should never be above scrutiny, of course but can banning, as a strategy, actually work?

Leanne Dempster said football clubs often want to control the media narrative [SNS]

"It's definitely not something you would do lightly, but there is no strategy to it," said former Hibs and Motherwell chief executive Leanne Dempster.

"It just leads to column inches about why and it never helps that particular club.

"It's never good to ban the media but clubs always want to control the narrative, to control what their players say - they always want to get stuff out through their own media channels."

She added: "Sometimes the club owner can react and it can be that the club almost has no option, but it's never something you should do lightly in a world where free speech is under threat.

"I'm not saying that sometimes there isn't a conversation to be had with a journalist, but have that chat - you also have to be available."

Former St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour believes it's mostly down to frustration.

"There's no doubt it's about that - football is a highly frustrating game but you need a thick skin or it's not the place for you," he said.

"It's frustrating that you work hard all week and it all comes down to 90 minutes, but ultimately it's a game of opinions and everyone should be allowed one."

In a sport and an industry where there is so much at stake, disagreements are inevitable.

With ever increasing scrutiny from an ever-growing media, it's unlikely we'll see a ban on the bans anytime soon.