To have credibility to comment on a matter, once needs to walk a mile in their shoes.
Wiggo made this point transparently clear in his rant the other day when asked about doping. Parental warning regarding foul language, or if you are a Wiggo follower, normal language for him.
Consider the move by US Soccer to qualify only ex-professional referees to their higher level assessing and instructing ranks. This to me is a particular clever maneuver and one that keeps the ship going in the right direction as these folks should have the most to share for those who need it the most.
Now, you may be asking, I just received an assessment in my youth match from someone who has not refereed much, recently, or maybe even at all. Should I take that advice?
My answer is a conditional yes. In "Confirmation Bias" or "China Syndrome"? we explored this a little bit and I came to the conclusion that all feedback is good feedback. However, you need to file it accordingly.
That said, those who have "been there" I believe hold a particularly keen ability to get the right message, in the right way to those who are listening.
This is true I think with Wiggo as well. Part of his point was related directly to the media who write, not do. While a necessary part of making a sport more attractive on the worlds stage, I hold their opinions (not reporting on the facts) in fairly low regard as so few have ever been where they are reporting on.
Those that have, I listen to more than nearly all others.