Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
On February 9, 2026, presenter Laura Woods responded to Eni Aluko’s recent criticism of pundit selection in women’s football coverage. Woods argued that playing caps alone do not qualify someone for punditry, and that the sport should not be restricted by gender. The next day, Aluko said on talkSPORT that Woods’ remarks made her feel “a bit gaslit,” citing Woods’ earlier praise of her broadcasting.
What Laura Woods said
Woods posted on X on February 9, 2026, addressing Aluko’s comments about who gets pundit roles in women’s football. She wrote: “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.” The Independent reported the post.
Woods also wrote: “If you want to grow something, you don’t gate keep it.” In further comments reported by GOAL, she called the phrase “The women’s game should be by women for women” damaging and argued that encouraging boys and men to watch women’s football could help the sport grow.
How Eni Aluko responded
On February 10, Aluko discussed Woods’ post on talkSPORT. She said: “I had to look at the messages yesterday and think, ‘hold on, I feel a bit gaslit here’.” Aluko explained that Woods had previously told her, “I think you’re a brilliant broadcaster, I think you’re a brilliant pundit,” and said she heard an implication that she did not meet the standard Woods had described. The Press Association’s account of the exchange was published by The Independent.
#1 Best Overall
“Gaslit” here is Aluko’s description of how the contrast felt to her; the reports do not establish it as an independent finding about Woods’ intent or conduct.
Why Ian Wright is part of the dispute
The exchange followed a disagreement that began in 2025, when Aluko criticized Ian Wright’s presence in women’s football coverage. She argued that men taking prominent roles could reduce the opportunities available to women, and later apologized. Reports say Wright declined to accept the apology. GOAL’s coverage links that earlier dispute to the latest comments.
Rank #2
Aluko also said that she and Fara Williams were not on the main pundit panels for the Women’s Euro 2025 final while male pundits appeared in coverage. She presented that as an example of women having less access to prominent roles in their own sport; that account and its significance are her position, not a full explanation of the broadcasters’ decisions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the disagreement is about
The two positions address related but distinct questions: who has access to the most visible jobs, and what qualifies someone to do those jobs. Aluko’s argument centers on representation and women’s access to premium coverage. Woods’ argument centers on communication and preparation as measures of punditry, rather than playing history alone, and on inviting a wider audience into the women’s game.
Rank #3
- Author: Manning, Peyton.Manning, Archie.Underwood, John.Peydirt Inc.
- Publisher: HarperEntertainment
- Pages: 384
- Publication Date: 2001-07-31
- Edition: Reprint
The available reports document the statements and the panel context described by Aluko. They do not disclose why broadcasters made particular selections or establish an objective ranking of any pundit’s ability.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
