The world of football punditry was thrown into the spotlight on February 10, 2026, as a heated exchange erupted live on talkSPORT between former England international Eni Aluko and ex-Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan. The confrontation, which played out on both radio and YouTube, stemmed from Aluko's recent remarks about the role of male pundits in women’s football—a debate that has reignited old tensions and sparked fresh controversy across the sporting community.
Aluko, a seasoned broadcaster and former Lioness with over 100 England caps, appeared on the show alongside Jim White and Simon Jordan to address the backlash over her comments. The conversation centered on her assertion that women’s football should be “gatekept,” with a preference for female ex-players—those with significant experience in the women’s game—fronting major broadcast panels. Her position came under fire after she voiced frustration that, during last summer’s Women’s Euros final, male pundits like Ian Wright and Nedum Onuoha were selected for the BBC and ITV panels while herself and fellow Lioness legend Fara Williams (combined 270 England caps) were not chosen.
At the outset of the program, Aluko sought to clarify her stance. “It’s about clarifying that 270 caps represents experience and insight,” she explained. “What I wasn’t saying is that caps alone justify an automatic pick. Of course you need the skillset to be a pundit. My point is that in women’s football, where there’s a choice, I’d like to see that level of experience on the main panel. That’s not at the exclusion of Ian Wright or Nedum Onuoha. I’m saying can women be the main faces of women’s sport, with men in more of a supporting role?”
Aluko’s suggestion was that male pundits could still contribute—perhaps with shorter, pre-match segments—before handing over to a predominantly female studio panel. She emphasized that her argument wasn’t meant to diminish the contributions of male allies like Wright, who has been a vocal supporter of the women’s game, but to highlight the value of lived experience and representation in shaping the narrative of women’s football.
Simon Jordan, however, was quick to challenge Aluko’s viewpoint and her credentials as a broadcaster. Before the program cut to a commercial break, Jordan launched a scathing critique. “I think the language you use is steeped in entitlement. I don’t think you’re owed anything,” he said. “As far as expertise is concerned, the times that I’ve listened to her—I don’t think that she’s particularly enlightening, illuminating, engaging or charismatic. I don’t think she comes across particularly likeable but that’s my view, but some people have the same view of me.”
Jordan’s comments didn’t stop there. He questioned the merit of Aluko’s broadcasting career, arguing that diversity initiatives have sometimes placed individuals in positions without sufficient merit. “The sheer weight of the entitlement you seem to believe you have would sink the weight of the Titanic. I think you have been quite fortuitous. I think because of initiatives like diversity, equity and inclusion, they’ve allowed people to be put into positions in the men’s game that I don’t think they’ve merited.”
As the show returned from the break, viewers on the station’s YouTube stream witnessed the tension firsthand. Jordan was seen gesticulating animatedly in Aluko’s direction, while she appeared visibly frustrated and looked away as the broadcast resumed. The palpable friction between the two highlighted just how divisive the issue of representation in football punditry has become.
Aluko, undeterred, defended her track record in the media, pointing to more than a decade of experience with major broadcasters. “I’ve worked for the biggest platforms in the world for 11 years,” she stated. “I listen to the professionals who hire me. I’ve been good enough for a long time.” Her words underscored her belief that her experience and insight should count for something in the competitive world of sports media.
The debate didn’t end with Jordan. Aluko’s comments drew a strong response from former ITV colleague Laura Woods, who criticized the notion of “gatekeeping” women’s football. Woods took to X (formerly Twitter) to argue that “caps don’t win automatic work and they don’t make a brilliant pundit either. The way you communicate, articulate yourself, do your research, inform your audience, how likeable you are and the chemistry you have with your panel are what makes a brilliant pundit.” Woods warned that framing the women’s game as “by women for women” could actually limit its growth, stressing the importance of engaging male audiences and praising Ian Wright’s visible support for the sport.
Addressing Woods’s remarks on air, Aluko accused her former colleague of “gaslighting” her, suggesting that Woods’s public stance did not match their past private conversations. “Laura is someone I used to go to and ask, ‘How did that go? What do you think?’” Aluko said. “She consistently told me I was a brilliant broadcaster. So when I see those comments, I do feel a bit gaslit. I respect that she doesn’t agree with me, that’s fine. But there’s an insinuation that because I’m not on screen, I’m not good enough. That’s not true.”
The on-air clash between Aluko and Jordan, and the subsequent social media fallout, has sparked a broader conversation about the criteria for punditry in women’s football. Should lived experience as a player be the primary qualification, or do communication skills and audience connection matter more? Can the women’s game grow without the support and visibility of high-profile male allies, or does true progress require women to lead the narrative?
Jordan, for his part, expressed skepticism about the transferability of expertise between men’s and women’s football. “With all due respect to women in men’s football, I think they have zero expertise in men’s football. I think they can talk about tactics but the two games are vastly different—the speed, the scale, the pressure, the physicality. They are vastly different games.”
Aluko, meanwhile, stood by her view that experience and representation matter. She reiterated that her comments were not about exclusion, but about empowering women with the platform to shape the future of their sport. “I want to see that level of experience on the main panel for women’s football. That’s not at the exclusion of Nedum Onuoha or Ian Wright. I’m saying can we have a situation where women are the main faces of women’s sport and then the men play more of a supporting role?”
As the dust settles on this latest punditry row, the questions raised are unlikely to fade soon. The debate over who gets to tell the story of women’s football—and how best to grow the game—remains as lively and contentious as ever. For now, all eyes are on the next broadcast, the next panel, and the next chapter in the ongoing evolution of football media.