You're not wrong. One of the things I and many others always do at the game or even on telly, is try to figure out the tactics. And I don't mean the formation and who is getting tight to who, but what pep for example is thinking and why he is playing a certain formation. The amount of commentators and pundits who seem to not notice, want to talk about it or even come across has having a clue what it may mean, is evident every game. Tactics change throughout the game and to have a pundits who may know what someone like pep is thinking would be very interesting. Instead it seems far easier to bash them and, in city's case, just point to the wealth on the bench.
Whilst I'm no fan of just removing people to conform with ideals of equality and balance, as in general real people are losing their jobs and sometimes even talent and ability is sidelined in favour of ticking other boxes - I do have to note how there are similarities here between removing the old, predominantly white middle age lot, and their heavy alliegences to the 90s and 00s top four of arsenal, Liverpool and United. Maybe the sound of old men climaxing when arsenal miss a long shot isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Plus, football really became a noticeably less white and all male sport in the UK around ten to twenty years ago or so, so it's only natural that in wanting more relevant and identifiable pundits that change happens here too. Which fits in nicely also with when we started to rise in prominence too, so it could just be that sky see this as a way to modernise not just in terms of how they connect with their audiences, but also in terms of which clubs they select their pundits from.
That's said, I don't know what sky's actual plans are, to replace or just drop the positions all together? If they go for mass box ticking and we end up with less engaging, less knowledgeable and over-pandering types, then it could fail miserably. I'm thinking of one person in particular here but won't mention, but I find her just unengaging and unknowledgeable.