Male pundits risk blocking opportunities for women - Aluko

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgkg8kjlp80o

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

 

Ian Wright has done more to glorify and amplify the women's game than most non-playing women, or men in general. Great bloke. Simple fact is equal opportunity goes both ways, we welcome women into the mens game and vice versa. Whoever is the best, and most importantly for that business, brings the most eyes, should get the job.

I have no doubt the issue with scumbag Barton has had an impact on her career. But the simple fact is, she's a shocking pundit. One of the worst. Considering she's been doing it over a decade and the lack of improvement is concerning. I've really tried to like Aluko but I just really don't. She feels really bitter and condescending, and I'm sure she has her reasons. Hence why ill just not listen to her.

Wish her all the best against Barton though.

 

Bizarre argument.

It works the other way too.

If you look at the last Euro’s & last World Cup nearly every studio had a female analyst in it covering a game. They weren’t there in 2014, 16 & 18 so they’ve taken work away from male pundits.

 

I suppose in a way she's right. A significant chunk of the public don't want female broadcasters hosting MOTD for example and given the status of the women's game compared to the Premier League I imagine that if male ex-players use the women's game as a way to "work their way up" to men's football it is blocking the chance of female ex-players having that opportunity in their own sport.
That being said, I think representation of women broadcasters in men's football has been fast-tracked to make men's football more attractive to both sexes. There is also (in my opinion) a bias towards those female broadcasters based on their looks. The female equivalent of Iain Dowie or Dean Windass would not get a look in.

All that being said I hope she's had the discussion with Ian Wright previously because as @Tyke The Tree-Frog says, Ian has done a lot to use his status to raise the profile of the women's game, particularly the England team. As he has done to raise sociological issues in other areas.

 

Male pundits who have held that position exclusively since TV's were invented you mean?

I think you've just proven her point.

 

She is of course correct there is a limited amount of opportunity but then there also is in the men’s game.
The reality is the use of Female presenters/commentators is increasing and as the people in the game get more exposure and well known it will continue to increase.

 

I haven't read the article, I'll probably have more time to later. But the bigger issue for me is that far too many ex players are pundits, which blocks opportunities for genuinely good football broadcasters and journalists to do that role who fundamentally are better.

We're getting to a stage where more podcasters are involved in sports broadcasts. I've never agreed with the notion that you have to have played the game to be able to properly talk about it.

 

It's not as if she's without privilege is it. Completely unaware of it too. Also the same woman who critisised people for being on furlough because "it created a culture of entitlement", before deleting her posts with a half arsed apology, then proceeded to lecture others about being careful what you say online after ******** Barton said some defamatory stuff about her.

 

Whilst ever Paul Merson is getting a gig, she has got a point.

 

"Richarlison has 19 goals in 40 games, you do the maths, that's a goal a game"

 

I think there's a strong case for getting rid of all the pundits, male and female.I don't have a pundit next to me at Oakwell and my experience of the match is not degraded by this.

 

You would have a point if he was appointed because he was a man. However i suspect he was given the gig because of his reputation in football, success on the field and high profile club. As a pundit he is awful so it cant be his pundit skills. Cant pronounce terms, names and that's even when he doesnt have a sandwich in his mouth while presenting. So it proves the point that people useless at the skills of punditry (including Aluko) can get a gig in the sport.

 

I haven’t. I’ve just pointed out that women have taken roles off men & she’s complaining men are taking roles off women.

Considering how she comes across she should be very grateful that she’s had any kind of TV work. I can’t think of a single male analyst who comes across as badly as she does & has as little personality as her that has kept a role as an analyst.

 

But Merson’s not on because he’s a brilliant pundit. He gets on tele because he’s entertaining & a character.

There’s two kinds of pundits. There’s your serious analysts & then there’s your characters like Merson, Richards or even Keane playing up to his personality.

I want a pundit to entertain me or tell me something interesting & that’s where someone like Aluko struggles because I don’t think she does either.

 

This debate pops up regularly and there's no right or wrong answer. Whatever, is suggested offends someone.

 

With punditry just get the people in who fans want on tele. Not a person because of a skin color or gender or whatever else. Just get the best people for the job. Same with any job, sadly that's not the case nowadays.

 

Michael Owen, Steve Mcmanaman, Martin Keown, Robbie Savage, Tim Sherwood, Andy Townsend etc etc.

I think she's crap, but there's loads of crap male pundits.

 

I wish he well in her court case against the nasty Barton. I also welcome the growing involvement of women in presenting / punditry of football (men & women’s game). For me, she’s a poor pundit & to have a dig at Wrighty about his involvement in the women’s game is pathetic.

 

It's a tricky situation because I agree that she isn't a very good pundit and for me is part of the wider problem of ex players being given that role simply because they're ex players.

But are women taking roles from men, or are the roles now being distributed more fairly. Speaking factually, you're correct of course, because historically 100% of those roles went to men and now it's probably down to about 80%. There's still far more women qualified for the role being overlooked in favour of people like Michael Owen.

 

Reminds me of the old Sol Campbell argument that he wasn't getting a chance in management because of his colour.
Certainly in his case it was because he wasn't anywhere near good enough and so far up his own arse he just didn't come across as very likeable at all.
She is right there are only finite opportunities so TV companies have loads of choice , but it cuts both ways, in men's football the staff were always predominantly male but then it became an equal opportunities job and some women took jobs there so you can't have it both ways and it then tends to be the more unpopular and less good ones that suffer.
Mind you I say this as somebody who pauses games at half time or goes make a cuppa or summat so I don't t have to listen to them telling me ( most times) the blindingly obvious, and if there was the option would happily watch the game with just the crowd noise!