Should women’s football be exclusively analyzed by women? This debate just got heated. Laura Woods has fired back at Eni Aluko’s controversial claim that only female pundits should cover women’s football. But here’s where it gets even more intriguing: Aluko, a former England women’s striker, criticized ITV and the BBC for featuring Ian Wright and Nedum Onuoha as pundits during the Euro 2025 final, where the Lionesses triumphed over Spain. Aluko, who was part of ITV’s punditry team for the tournament but didn’t work on an England game or the final, argued on the 90s Baby Show podcast that women’s football should be a female-only domain, citing the scarcity of opportunities for women in men’s football. She also pointed to her own 105 England caps and Fara Williams’ 172 caps as evidence of their qualifications, questioning why they weren’t given prominent roles during the final. But is this a step forward for women’s sports, or a step backward?
Woods, who hosts ITV’s coverage of the Lionesses, dismantled Aluko’s argument in a detailed social media thread. She emphasized that a pundit’s value isn’t determined by their playing career but by their ability to communicate, research, and engage with the audience. “Caps don’t guarantee brilliance,” Woods wrote. “It’s about how you connect with viewers and your panel.” She also slammed the phrase “the women’s game should be by women for women” as damaging, arguing it could stifle the growth of women’s sports and punditry. “If you want to grow something, you don’t gatekeep it,” she added, advocating for inclusivity to attract a broader audience, including men and boys. “When someone like Ian Wright takes it seriously, others follow suit. That’s how you grow a sport.”
And this is the part most people miss: Woods highlighted ITV’s success, noting their Broadcast Sport Awards 2025 win for best production and Seb Hutchinson’s best commentator award. “ITV got it just right,” she concluded, sharing a photo of her diverse team. But the debate doesn’t end there. Aluko previously accused Wright of “blocking opportunities” for women in punditry last year, leading to a public apology she issued—which Wright refused to accept. Now, her latest comments have reignited the controversy. Is Aluko’s stance a necessary push for gender equality, or does it inadvertently limit the sport’s growth?
Aluko’s frustration is palpable. She recalled sitting in the stands during the Lionesses’ final, alongside Fara Williams, while men occupied punditry spots. “We’ve got 290 caps between us, and we’re in the stands,” she said, questioning the allocation of roles. “It’s not about Ian or Nedum personally—it’s about the broader trend. If men take the limited opportunities in women’s football, where does that leave us?” What do you think? Should women’s football be exclusively analyzed by women, or is diversity in punditry essential for its growth? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
