Spotlight on Eni Aluko’s comments about Ian Wright deflects attention from real issue | OneFootball

Eni Aluko likely did not expect her recent appearance on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour to result in a torrent of abuse and headlines. The former England striker went on air to discuss, among other things, the lack of opportunities available to women in sports broadcasting and the never-ending fight for better representation on screen.

That conversation was derailed by her comments on fellow footballer turned pundit Ian Wright. Aluko described Wright as a “brilliant broadcaster”, but said he “should be aware” of the space he occupies in women’s football coverage. “I think we need to be conscious and we need to make sure that women are not being blocked from having a pathway into broadcasting in the women’ game,” she said. “There's a finite amount of opportunities and I think that men need to be aware of that.”

The furore around her comments is twofold. The first aspect is that Wright, of all people, feels an unfair target. The former Arsenal striker has long been a staunch advocate of the women’s game, founding and donating to the Ian Wright Coaching Fund to increase the number of female coaches in grassroots football; paying for Stoke City player Kayleigh McDonald’s rehab from an ACL injury, as revealed by The Telegraph; and advocating for girls to have equal opportunities with boys to play football in school.

To respond directly to Aluko’s suggestion that he takes up space a woman could fill instead, he has covered exactly one WSL game in the league’s history, and 11 Lionesses games in the past two seasons – hardly hogging the limelight. To suggest that in doing so he has “blocked” a female pundit from an opportunity that is rightfully hers feels churlish at best and outright backwards at worst.

Something Aluko does not seem to realise is that the women’s game needs male voices too. Male broadcasters who are passionate about uplifting women’s football and giving it the platform, respect and attention it deserves.

To make women’s football solely the domain of female presenters and pundits would be self-defeating. Aluko is correct to say that there are a multitude of issues facing women in both sport and sports broadcasting – and she has had to endure more than her fair share. The sheer volume and breathtakingly personal nature of abuse on social media. The attacks on a woman’s credibility purely because of her gender; the fact that this is inevitably worse for Aluko because of her race. The ever-present threats of violence and harassment, and their potential to spill over into real life. With those in mind, maybe she wasn’t surprised to see the reaction to her Woman’s Hour interview: aware of the impossible standards women in broadcasting face – which even the most mediocre of male pundits are spared, of course – and how they inevitably fail to meet them.

It’s always worth drawing attention to the fact that sports journalism and presenting remains very much a man’s game, one that would only be improved by more diverse perspectives that better reflect the makeup of teams on the pitch and the real world.

But putting women’s football in a bubble would not help matters.

Efforts to make the game mainstream and expand its reach can only be helped by having recognisable, respected pundits and commentators of both genders lending their voice to it. There should be crossover between the two games, with those who make the transition from elite football to TV able to offer insight and colour on both, in the same way that female ex-tennis players commentate on men’s matches without handwringing and chuntering on social media, and vice versa. There are dozens of former female footballers in presenting and punditry who do this effortlessly, who improve viewers’ experience of the game because of what they bring. Likewise, there are men – Wright to give one example – whose voice, insights and interest in women’s football, are welcome. To put women’s football on a par with men’s, as it deserves to be, it needs all of those voices.

open image in gallery

Aluko has covered numerous major tournaments including the men's World Cup in 2022 (Getty Images)

There is also a darker side to Aluko’s suggestion that male pundits are “blocking” women from those roles. To suggest that Wright, and other male pundits, take up space in the women’s game that women should fill is to imply that the reverse is true of women in the men’s game. That there is no overlap between the two. Aluko risks inadvertently siding with the same misogynists and social media trolls who insist women, even former footballers, have no right to offer insight or commentary in the men’s game. The same misogynists and Joey Barton-ites who want her off the telly.

But the wider response to, and media coverage of, Aluko’s comments only reinforces one of her main points, one which has got lost in the furore. She pointed out in the same interview, referencing her libel case against Barton and the abuse she has suffered online from him and his followers, that “This happens in lots of industries – when women stand up for themselves, their career takes a hit.” She told presenter Clare McDonnell that she felt that her TV opportunities had dried up since she took a stand against Barton and made her voice heard.

The backlash to her Woman’s Hour interview – specifically her comments referencing Wright – may have a further knock-on effect on those opportunities. Is that fair, when her comments were misguided, but not malicious? Would a male presenter or commentator receive the same backlash for similarly mild-mannered comments about a colleague? Or is it purely because Aluko is female that a pile-on is encouraged, and that the controversy will stick to her?

It was a wide-ranging interview: Aluko talked about the impact of her libel case, and emphasised the importance of opening up more opportunities for women in TV. She didn’t bring up Wright herself; presenter McDonnell mentioned him as an example of a successful pundit who is very prominent in the women’s game. Had his name not been brought up, it’s likely that Aluko would never have singled him out.

open image in gallery

Aluko has worked for several broadcasters since her retirement from football in 2020 (Getty Images)

The headlines would – should – have focused on her comments on the pressure the libel case and Barton’s abuse put on her; how she felt so overwhelmed by the abuse that she felt she had to disguise herself to leave the house. As it is, attention has been diverted away from the story of that trauma, and the fact that a woman has seen her career go downhill since defending herself against abuse, to what looks like a personal attack on a colleague.

Aluko is right that women face an obscene amount of pressure and criticism when they stand up for themselves. She has experienced that acutely and may now be left feeling that there is nothing she can say without risking backlash. But that means that there is even more onus on standing up for the right reasons. It’s a horrendous double standard, but it’s also a fact.

Aluko had an important point to make – but directing it at the wrong target attracts all the wrong headlines, cheapens the whole argument, and means that the actual issue gets drowned out in a media and social media storm. It does not reinforce her argument; it encourages bad actors to continue to discredit her. There is a serious issue buried below this, but focusing on the likes of Ian Wright deflects attention away from that issue, and leaves us exactly where we were.