‘They’re only there for appearance’ ... the words that caused a storm

THIS is an edited version of the opinion piece written by Simon Kelner for the i newspaper.

MY question – and I pose it nervously – is this: Why did our major TV channels feel the need to have a female presence on their World Cup panels?

...The fact is that the World Cup is competed for, exclusively, by men. There is an enormous amount of diversity in this competition in terms of race, colour and ethnicity, but not of gender.

This is not to say that only men have a right to comment on professional football, but my intuition is that the TV bosses sought to have women on the panel for reasons of appearance rather than to satisfy a latent demand to hear their opinions. And isn’t that tokenism in and of itself?

I would ... 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. Some people may find it equally odd when men are commentators in women’s football matches.

Both BBC and ITV are lucky that the modern professional footballer, in the main, has a certain degree of media training, and the technical analysis offered by the likes of Alan Shearer, Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand sets a very high bar for newbies such as [Eni] Aluko and [Alex] Scott.

Their offerings may seem bland by comparison, but compared with Glenn Hoddle, they are incisive and intelligent. And he managed the England team once.