The Danger of the "By Women, For Women" Mindset: Why Eni Aluko is Wrong

The meteoric rise of women’s football over the last few years has been a triumph of persistence and visibility. From sold-out stadiums to record-breaking broadcast deals worth millions, the women’s game has finally stepped out of the shadows and into the global spotlight.

However, recent comments from former Lioness Eni Aluko have sparked a fierce debate that threatens to pull the sport back toward the very isolation it fought so hard to escape.

During a series of appearances, most notably on talkSPORT with Simon Jordan and Jim White, Aluko criticised the inclusion of male pundits—specifically targeting Ian Wright and Nedum Onuoha—in the coverage of the 2025 Women’s Euro final. Her argument? That the women’s game should be "gatekept" and that men should play only a "supporting role."  

While Aluko’s desire to see more opportunities for female broadcasters is understandable, her inability to support her statements with evidence has fuelled further backlash. By demanding a closed-door policy, her approach is not only misguided but actively damaging to the sport’s commercial sustainability moving forward. 

Aluko’s logic is that because women are sometimes relegated to supporting roles in men’s football, men should face the same restrictions in the women’s game. She has argued that having male "main characters" in the studio blocks the pathway for women with extensive playing experience and talent.

However, as broadcaster Laura Woods brilliantly pointed out, the phrase "the women’s game should be by women for women" is one of the most damaging perspectives possible.

Woods rightly sent a rebuttal to these comments via her personal X (previously Twitter) account:

“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.

If you want to grow something, you don’t gate keep it. We want to encourage little boys and men to watch women’s football too, not just little girls and women. And when they see someone like Ian Wright taking it as seriously as he does – they follow suit. That’s how you grow a sport.”

If women’s football is marketed as an exclusive club, it risks alienating the millions of men and boys whose engagement is vital for the commercial sustainability of the professional game and the growth we have seen after the succesess of the Lionesses.

Perhaps the most confusing part of Aluko’s stance is her targeting of Ian Wright. Wright has been a tireless advocate for the WSL and the national team for many years, using his massive platform in the men’s game to normalise women’s football for a previously sceptical public.

When a figure like Wright analyses a women's match with the same tactical depth and emotional intensity as a Premier League fixture, he bridges the demographic gap. Suggesting he is "blocking" women is a misread of how his influence works; his presence validates the sport as an elite product that deserves the attention of every football fan.

By calling for a "supporting role" for men, Aluko inadvertently reinforces the idea that women’s football is a "lesser" sport that cannot survive on its own in a merit-based market.

If pundits are chosen based on gender rather than communication skills, the quality of coverage will suffer. Fans deserve the best analysts, regardless of who they played for and what gender they are.