Female Pundits - Tokens or Titans?

© The Guardian

After a fantastic month of unpredictable football, the 2018 Russian World Cup sadly drew to a close on Sunday. So, as the cinematic montages fade to black, and yet more dust settles on England’s trophy cabinet, it is a time for reflection.

This World Cup has been defined by a rebalancing of the scales of international football, with traditional giants losing their well-established footing on the world stage. Bookmakers were defied and office sweepstakes were astounded as the likes of Argentina, Germany, and Spain, made early exits from the competition, making room for teams like Croatia and Russia to carve their way in World Cup history. This refreshing trend has been reflected on our screens too, as female pundits Eni Aluko and Alex Scott have trailblazed into traditionally male-dominated studios. With successful football careers behind them, their insight and analysis has been a welcome addition to the tournament’s coverage.

I am reluctant to discuss how Scott and Aluko have ‘held their own’ in the studio, as this has connotations of them somehow defying the odds. It is frustrating that women have to prove anything at all, but the reality is that they do. I do not envy Aluko and Scott’s position; they must exhaustingly hold themselves to an incredibly high standard, lest they drop the ball, and have doubts creep in. As outsiders, they have to be equal, if not better than their male counterparts in order to prove their worth. It is a luxury taken for granted by the men that they are free to make lazy and ridiculous points, and it will not be attributed to the makeup of their chromosomes.

As a girl who has watched and played football all my life, I am aware of a subtle disbelief from some people when I say I love football, feeling the need to substantiate my appreciation with my record as a season ticket holder and as a participant in a Saturday League. So, for me it is validating to see women with knowledge and experience confidently and intelligently analysing the game. The more society becomes accustomed to women talking about football, the more women will be taken seriously when discussing the subject, which is something I personally welcome.

This development has not, however, been embraced by everyone. One journalist, namely Simon Kelner, wrote this piece about how pundits like Aluko and Scott are certainly knowledgeable and their presence valid, however, adding as a teensy side note that their inclusion is tokenistic and their insight irrelevant.

Kelner starts his article by discussing Aluko’s merits and achievements, noting her successful career playing for England, Chelsea and Juventus, and that she is both articulate and engaging, concluding that ‘all these qualities justify [her] presence as a pundit.’ Bizarrely, for an article discussing whether Aluko’s inclusion is merited, you’d think he’d put his pen down there, as he has made a persuasive case. Unfortunately, this paragraph merely serves as the misogynistic equivalent of ‘I’m not racist but…’

After posturing about how females are indeed welcome to comment (no one asked, but thanks) he goes on to bulldoze his individually-built pedestal, by questioning ‘the insight they offer’, because this is the men’s World Cup, and having females talk about it is ‘like getting a netball player to discuss major league basketball.’ He concludes therefore, that the only real explanation for their presence is that they are tokens. If you listen very carefully, you can hear the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped, as the confused Kelner grapples for a justification upon which to pin his latent discomfort at having women discussing football.

Firstly, whilst I agree that women’s and men’s football can be tactically different, I disagree that this makes female footballers opinions invalid, as it only adds diversity to the debate. Not to smugly use Kelner’s words against him, but Aluko’s experience offers a ‘refreshingly different tone to the coverage’. Secondly, a difference in tactics does not cut solely down gendered lines, with team’s such as Iran playing intensely compact defensive tactics being starkly different to France’s structured and dominant approach. With such tactical diversity within men’s football, to claim the chasm between the men’s and women’s game is so wide as to be different sports is nonsensical. Finally, I happened to hear a radio interview with Freddie Flintoff last week, about where England went wrong. Curiously, no questions were asked.

Leading us to the real crux of Kelner’s argument: the presence of female pundits serves only to tick boxes for a diversity drive at the BBC and ITV. Alex Scott has 140 caps, and has a strong background in sports journalism, presenting the BBC’s Final Score and Goals on Sunday, while Aluko holds a modest 102 caps, became the first female pundit on Match of the Day in 2014, and has since covered the 2016 European Championships and the 2017 Women’s Euros. I could follow Kelner’s argument if these women had been dropped into the studio with no broadcasting experience or knowledge of the game. However, their contributions are incredibly insightful, bolstered by their substantial experience on the pitch. Their presence is deserved by their merit, and it is an insult to their careers to insinuate that the only reason they are given airtime is due to their gender, rather than their intrinsic value.

Kelner said himself that their presence is justified, yet his reluctance to accept that their expertise is the reason for their positions is why the cry of tokenism is insidious. What more can these women possibly do, when they have already proved they are good enough, and yet their presence is still questioned? Any merits they offer will always be undermined by the suggestion that their voices are not valid in and of themselves.

If you are listening to a woman speaking articulately, passionately and knowledgeably about a topic she has every right to talk about, and all you can think is ‘the only thing she can possibly offer is diversity’, then you are part of the problem. I can only hope this discomfort will subside with exposure, so long may women’s presence continue.