This weird take on women pundits at the World Cup got the two-footed tackles it deserved
For the first time at this World Cup both the BBC (Alex Scott) and ITV (Eni Aluko) have had women pundits on their teams and most people have been very happy with it.
Rave reviews, step forward for diversity, breath of fresh air, raised the bar … that’s the sort of thing people have been saying.
Not Simon Kelner though, the former editor of the Independent who would rather the World Cup pundits’ club remained a men only affair.
"It's like getting netball players to comment on major league basketball." My (more considered) take on women panellists for the World Cup is here https://t.co/pggXFPnJy3
— Simon Kelner (@Simon_Kelner) June 19, 2018
Here’s a little bit of what he has to say (read the whole thing here).
‘Eni Aluko and Alex Scott have shown themselves to be knowledgable and enthusiastic … I would only question the insight they offer. Women’s football is a very different game from that played at the World Cup, much less intense and physical, with very different tactical exigencies. I’m not saying that women’s football isn’t entertaining or relevant, but it’s like getting a netball player to discuss major league basketball.’
Hmm, well, maybe. Here’s how people responded online.
1.
Yes, because that would be a different sport you dreadful, boring, gammon man. https://t.co/brU6M4Yvqj
— Edward McAdam-Hann (@edwardhann) June 21, 2018
2.
First he says the women are providing excellent and insightful comments. Then he says it is weird they are there and that they are not that great. On journalistic merit alone, his piece is drivel. https://t.co/k8bJzM8GsM
— Marieke (@BunnyFactor10) June 21, 2018
3.
Pointless article. You essentially admit they’re more insightful than men like Hoddle (probably numerous others let’s be honest) so isn’t it just the case they’re there on merit?
— jumping_man (@jumpingman_tp) June 19, 2018
4.
As long as you have a penis, you can be a sports commentator without any professional playing experience, but if you don't have a penis, no amount of professional accomplishment is enough to justify your presence. https://t.co/yvDz0fYqnM
— Crosswalk Gritty (@peatonx) June 21, 2018
5.
Simon, this is a freezing cold take. They’re EXACTLY THE SAME SPORT.
That ship has sailed, and not before time
— Samuel West (@exitthelemming) June 20, 2018
6.
There are so many ironies here, but the fact that he's chosen to quote himself misremembering the name of a sports organisation to illustrate his point is probably enough to realise it's not worth reading. https://t.co/S04DgHV37t
— dan barker (@danbarker) June 20, 2018
7.
So when it is the women’s world cup the male pundits will not travel and be able to give an opinion because they would not have the correct knowledge about the women’s game to comment.
— Sharon Street ♀️♀️ (@sharonstreet) June 20, 2018
8.
This is a really weird article. It openly admits that Scott and Aluko have offered good analysis and insight and are better than some male pundits, but still feels the need to question their presence on broadcasting panels. Very odd. https://t.co/JvTUnLaQzA
— Olly Allen (@OllyAllen_) June 20, 2018
9.
And I’m sure you know this, but I’ll add – so what for a bit of tokenism if the end result is more women believing they belong in the football and footballing media world, breaking up the incredibly unhealthy old boys’ club?
— jumping_man (@jumpingman_tp) June 19, 2018
