Joey Barton-Female football pundits row.

Chrismalkin said:
How have I? There are a few women presenters/pundits who are decent. But there’s dozens who are terrible, getting lots of air time, over good male pundits. Because it ticks a box.

It’s not all or nothing. Just stop giving the poor ones jobs for the sake of ticking a box.
Click to expand...
I have been told that the woman who co-ordinates and presents the after match stuff on Radio Lancs has no interest in football and the way she talks it may well be true. As you say, just ticking boxes
 
Whilst I am at it, I will also share something else that's shit. If you go on BBC Football, women's football headlines are mixed in with men's. I am sorry but that is just shit. You should be able to choose between what you want to read. It's all being forced which again is Joey's point.

Why don't they force League One stories as main headlines? Surely that would be equality as well?
 
poolseasider said:
Been discussed on here a few times is he right?


Click to expand...
The Sky Sports News female presenters are the worst. Following the Brazil v Argentina WC qualifier one of them referred to the Macarena rather than the Maracana stadium. Catchy song though. Last Sunday one of these ladies referred to the Chelsea right back as James Reece. Unbelievable Jeff!
 
Chrismalkin said:
How have I? There are a few women presenters/pundits who are decent. But there’s dozens who are terrible, getting lots of air time, over good male pundits. Because it ticks a box.

It’s not all or nothing. Just stop giving the poor ones jobs for the sake of ticking a box.
Click to expand...
You now seem to be saying that a mix of men and women is right. And I agree!
 
It's gone too much the other way and
20togo said:
I have been told that the woman who co-ordinates and presents the after match stuff on Radio Lancs has no interest in football and the way she talks it may well be true. As you say, just ticking boxes
Click to expand...
I can quite believe that. She sounds like a youth trainee with limited knowledge of the game who can't even properly intonate reading the classified scores. Surely they could find someone who's actually interested in the subject.
 
Barton right in my mind.
Far to many women commentating on the mens game telling us all where they are going wrong players, managers, referees, Var pretty much everything.
Let’s leave it up to the male experts who have years playing at the top yes we might not agree with them all the time but at least they know what they are talking about.
It’s pretty clear some women are on the box for their looks not brains.
 
Last edited:
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
He is spot on . Why put someone who has never played at the highest level, when there are so many footballers that have?
Click to expand...
I don't recall much about John Motson, Barry Davies or Brian Moore's stellar International football careers but they all talked about the game a lot better than Joey Barton.

You don't have to have played in order to be able to commentate.
 
April13th1970 said:
It's even worse than when they replace a woman who's talented and good at her job with a man who's younger just to appeal to the "Yoof"

E.g. Sue Barker/Paddy McWhatshisface
Click to expand...
Kind of the same thing - although can’t think of a more annoying human than
April13th1970 said:
It's even worse than when they replace a woman who's talented and good at her job with a man who's younger just to appeal to the "Yoof"

E.g. Sue Barker/Paddy McWhatshisface
Click to expand...
Same Kind of thing
 
20togo said:
I have been told that the woman who co-ordinates and presents the after match stuff on Radio Lancs has no interest in football and the way she talks it may well be true. As you say, just ticking boxes
Click to expand...
Maddie? She is awful. There are quite a few blokes who they have on as guests who are rubbish as well though.
 
Got half way through and got bored of Barton not answering the question and repeating the same point.

He is just saying what many football fans think, rightly or wrongly.

Personally, I hardly watch the punditry and there's plenty of rubbish male pundits who I find predictable and boring. There's some decent ones and there's a couple of the women who are decent too. I don't think the women's pundits opinions are worth less than the men's because they haven't played in the men's game, they're only analysing a football match for the benefit of a punter and they'll be very knowledgeable on the game.

There was one occasion where it did cross my mind, I was watching a lower league game (possibly Bradford vs Grimsby) and normally you would have a former pro or manager from each team. On this occasion they had a former female pro who played for Liverpool. It made me think that if Blackpool were on TV would I rather hear from a former player or manager or a random (regardless of sex), I came to the conclusion I would rather have the former pro.

I think there will be occasions where the broadcasting quality will be affected by tokenism. I think the women are qualified to talk about the game but fans of clubs would prefer to see a former player. The fans viewing experience isn't as good and a former pro misses out because the broadcasters want to be seen as inclusive so the woman gets preferred because she's a woman.
 
To me he’s dug himself into a hole.
He made several comments about females being factually incorrect and gave (IMO ) a very poor example of a female pundit who said a player scored with his laces when clearly he sidefooted it.
Piers then made reference to an Alan Hansen faux pas and Barton said “anyone can make a mistake
He never gave credited to one single female presenter so to me it is all sexist because there’s have been hundreds of ex footballers who have been absolute choite at commentating.
Kamara (a good old boy for laughs but come on, didn’t know a penalty had been awarded, didn’t know when a player had been sent off, and that’s just a few of his blunders)
And then we get Dean Windass who was absolutely pathetic (and that is being kind)
Being a presenter is a very skilled job indeed but there are decent females and males and equally bad presenters of both sexes.
 
Wizaard said:
I don't recall much about John Motson, Barry Davies or Brian Moore's stellar International football careers but they all talked about the game a lot better than Joey Barton.

You don't have to have played in order to be able to commentate.
Click to expand...

They are commentators. You wouldn't expect those in a studio or in a co-commentator position giving analysis on the game. Very different.
 
Eternaloptimist said:
To me he’s dug himself into a hole.
He made several comments about females being factually incorrect and gave (IMO ) a very poor example of a female pundit who said a player scored with his laces when clearly he sidefooted it.
Piers then made reference to an Alan Hansen faux pas and Barton said “anyone can make a mistake
He never gave credited to one single female presenter so to me it is all sexist because there’s have been hundreds of ex footballers who have been absolute choite at commentating.
Kamara (a good old boy for laughs but come on, didn’t know a penalty had been awarded, didn’t know when a player had been sent off, and that’s just a few of his blunders)
And then we get Dean Windass who was absolutely pathetic (and that is being kind)
Being a presenter is a very skilled job indeed but there are decent females and males and equally bad presenters of both sexes.
Click to expand...

Agree. He gets himself into a mess trying to be all PC but when you do that, you end up saying stuff that doesn't make sense or where the initial point is lost. He should have just stuck to his original point that there are too many female pundits that are ruining the experience.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Now and again ,you get a diamond in the rock and you do get the odd woman who seems to know and talk well. Yet the only reason that she got the job would be because of this madness of equal opportunities . We are not equal ,but some people don't understand this. Women are better at some things as are men . So why overlook the hundreds of male ex footballers that would make good pundits to end up with a number of poor pundits to find one good one.
Click to expand...
Because it’s a game and it doesn’t really matter who talks over it
 
BlackpoolPunk said:
What annoys me is the FA cup draws, I don't care which sex compares it but why do they have to tell us a fact about every team picked out? The ones picking the balls out have to stand with it in hand waiting whilst the compare says something like, Blackpool, won the cup in 1953 or 9th in Division 1, beat Bromley in round 1 just get on with it.
Click to expand...
I'm the same. I don't watch the FA Cup draws any more. It's another tradition from when I was a little kid that I used to love that I'm completely alienated from. All you need is a bag holding a ball for each team in the competition, two people to draw the home and away teams, somebody announcing the draws and a section on the side of the screen keeping a record. Bert Millichip, Graham something or other the bloke from Cleveleys who used to run the FA drawing the balls from the bag and David Davies doing the announcements is all that was needed. Now it's a circus. All those ooos and aaaahs and the sucking of teeth. Just bollocks the lot of it.
 
Well done Joey and thanks for having the balls to say what most people think. And let’s have all the womens sport on a separate channel that you have to pay for then we’ll see the demand 😀Womens cricket for example.
 
You would never see a defender from a National League Team invited to be a pitch side pundit at Arsenal vs Everton for example.

Why? Because they've never played at a level that high. They wouldn't be able to offer any sort of insight into the demands of that level, or tell us what the players are going through/thinking about at a specific moment, because they've never experienced it.

And this is the exact reason that female footballers should not be pundits when it comes to men's football - the standard they're used to is just not comparable.
 
I personally don't have a problem with it, i watch sport on TV to watch the match not listen to pre or post match conversations.
I think there isn't a woman currently in the world who could play in the man's game but some of them are technically very gifted and good players.
I just think it isn't going away and never will but as people say nobody is making us watch it we do have a choice.
 
69skin said:
The Sky Sports News female presenters are the worst. Following the Brazil v Argentina WC qualifier one of them referred to the Macarena rather than the Maracana stadium. Catchy song though. Last Sunday one of these ladies referred to the Chelsea right back as James Reece. Unbelievable Jeff!
Click to expand...
When they fall to the level of his chissiness who mistake Marv for Callum Connolly, and the chismeister isnt even the worst commentator by a square mile on radio Blackburn, then I think criticism can be levelled.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Taken to its logical conclusion, that would end message board debate very quickly.

The wider issue that bemuses me is how threatened some men on here feel by opinionated and articulate women. You were all very happy to have one around to lead the protests back in the day.
Click to expand...
Threatened? Are you sure that's the reason,?
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
They are commentators. You wouldn't expect those in a studio or in a co-commentator position giving analysis on the game. Very different.
Click to expand...
We get it every week on here though from people who have barely broke a sweat in their lives*, let alone played top level football.





*Unless The Armenian is closing.
 
BlackpoolPunk said:
What annoys me is the FA cup draws, I don't care which sex compares it but why do they have to tell us a fact about every team picked out? The ones picking the balls out have to stand with it in hand waiting whilst the compare says something like, Blackpool, won the cup in 1953 or 9th in Division 1, beat Bromley in round 1 just get on with it.
Click to expand...
BBC innit. The woman just reads the fact from her list. But she is pretty and a person of colour so....if anything it's patronising to her and women in general (though I'm not a woman so that's not for me to say 🫡) as she is just being used as eye candy.
 
Me thinks Joey has a podcast to plug so needs to pull in some traction by saying something controversial whether he thinks it not.

I’ve not finished hating the male ones yet. The BBC have Danny Murphy telling Mbappe what it takes at a World Cup. They’ve only just finished karting Mark Lawrenson out when he retired thirty odd years ago. If he’s saying women aren’t playing the same game at the highest level neither did those two.
 
It's not just football. World has gone crazy. Racism and sexism have been a thing for 2 long. Unfortunately nobody seems to be able to implement treating everybody equally. It's just seems now to be just as bad, if not worse, but in the opposite direction. People are cleary getting positions based on sex, skin colour and even sexual preference.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
On the football front there are clearly some women now getting the chance they deserve/have earned. Unfortunately there are clearly women getting chances they haven't earned because some people want an immediate large female presence.
It's damaging the profession having sub standard pundits, and in the long run it will be to the detrement of the qualified/good/deserving pundits who for example are female. Having rushed in sub standard female pundits will create a dislike of women pundits in general by a lot and the good will be brought down by the bad in some degree.
 
I think some blokes just can't handle the fact there are women out there who are far better footballers and have a far greater knowledge of the game.
 
Who gives a fuck. It's hot air on telly. Watch the game, crack on with life. Hours of shit after games. Who cares?

Diversity is about selling shit. It's about appealing to a broader audience. Football on telly is top, middle and bottom a commercial enterprise.

Take it up with the free market. It's got fuck all to do with quotas or politics. It's just TV companies noticing that the middle aged white male who drove the Premier League is aging and dying off and there's a big wide world of people to sell 'the great league in the world (c) to.
 
td53 said:
Who gives a fuck. It's hot air on telly. Watch the game, crack on with life. Hours of shit after games. Who cares?

Diversity is about selling shit. It's about appealing to a broader audience. Football on telly is top, middle and bottom a commercial enterprise.

Take it up with the free market. It's got fuck all to do with quotas or politics. It's just TV companies noticing that the middle aged white male who drove the Premier League is aging and dying off and there's a big wide world of people to sell 'the great league in the world (c) to.
Click to expand...
Bollocks it's box ticking and everyone knows it.
 
What 'boxes' are being ticked by the *commercial" media whose bottom line is profit and advertising. That is literally all they care about. Nowt else. They promote women's football because it's a new market. They use women pundits as it adds appeal to different viewers. They fill a schedule with things to sell it. Not to promote an agenda. They're not political entities. Sometimes they might promote a cause or have a documentary but all of that is subservient to the ultimate goal. To sell more adverts and subscriptions than it costs to make the thing and therefore make a profit for the shareholders.

If they make their product more palatable to a broader range of people (globally) then they sell more adverts and subscriptions. That is why they use a mix of genders and ethnicities.

What's 'bollocks' about that?

Have I blinked and missed the fact that *everyone knows* that the Premier League and Sky (both absolutely defined by free market/deregulation era politics) are ACTUALLY bastions of some kind of secret Marxist conspiracy and *not in fact commercial enterprises after all*.

If it was purely the BBC then maybe it would hold some water, but the BBC has about 4 games a year and is no more diverse than anyone else. Everyone else is about profit/sales.

Globally there's loads of women presenting sport in all sorts of cultures. Mel Farrell for example on Aussie cricket. The woman I watched doing baseball the other day.. Leanne whatserface who does the fitba off the top of my head.

If we're actually bothered about the make up of the game, perhaps people could wonder about why 'our game' has been flogged off so cheaply to global capital and is now an international play thing that we have almost no stake in instead of playing along with some failed ex managers playground level attempt to join in with a pseudo culture war about a non existent problem. The idea that somehow only a man can go 'yeah, he was offside there Alan' is unbelievably mental.

Premier League football is embodied by the fact the Americans made Ted Lasso and that shows you a hell of a lot about the fact football is not being sold to the same audience it was 20 or 30 years ago.
 
Some very predictable pc brigade replies what has turned people to be so pathetic .He is correct but the main reason I either switch off or down is the horrendous screeching it just sounds terrible and most women watching it feel the same as do most people you actually speak to .Only seems to be the same left leaning virtue signalers and pc brigade that oppose what he said especially those in high profile media jobs .It's about time people ignored the tiny minority who try and cancel people and stood up for the truth .These women only get the jobs to tick boxes and that's a fact it's wrong .Anybody saying different is either a liar or pretending to be pc
 
Women commentating & discussing men's football, bloody outrageous FFS they'll be releasing them from the sink & giving them the vote next 🤬
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
Whilst I am at it, I will also share something else that's shit. If you go on BBC Football, women's football headlines are mixed in with men's. I am sorry but that is just shit. You should be able to choose between what you want to read. It's all being forced which again is Joey's point.

Why don't they force League One stories as main headlines? Surely that would be equality as well?
Click to expand...
Yep, tbf I don't mind them pushing it, given it was suppressed in the past, but it'll never be as big as the mens game as its an inferior product and women don't support it anywhere near as much as men do their game.

It is funny and annoying when a notification pops up and catches you out... 'Chelsea sign man city star'... you click and it's Rachel Smith.

It's fine in it's own space however its hard to ignore the fact you know you're watching something where most of the women's best sides get beaten by teenage boys really.

Which brings in the whole equal pay thing in football, which is a nonesense as its a business.

Women would be paid the same if they get as many people watching it, sponsors, tv deals etc.

Just saying women should be paid the same is ridiculous, as not all men are paid the same.

League 2 players should be payed as much as Premier league players then. Let's have equality guys. Just doesn't work that way.

It's almost as annoying as the general equal pay articles that compare men and women's earnings with no context. It ignore the fact women, of their own free will, CHOOSE jobs like receptionist, hairdresser etc and many men CHOOSE skilled jobs, tradesmen, tough jobs that pay well etc. Nevermind that woman also make a choice between career and bringing up a family.

It's all part of the silly push for equality even where its not possible or wanted.

You never hear about the lack of women sewer cleaners, scaffolders, on the oil rigs etc. Or that fact that many industries are dominated by women, receptionists, hairdressers, the NHS.

We don't hear about barriers for men in those industries.

Men and women are different and will choose different things. Equality of opportunity is what we have and want, not equality of outcome.
 
Eh, I do admit there are a few female commentators who are quite grating to me and i'm not sure how they have managed to get the job, however there's certainly a few men who fall into the same category.

Regardless of your gender if you've studied the sport for decades, have a genuine love and passion for it and have a decent personality and ability for self expression then the gates should be open to you. Are some females being fast tracked into positions when they clearly don't have a nous for it?, quite possibly. However in the grand scheme of things it's not something i'm ever going to get particularly riled up about.
 
Wizaard said:
I don't recall much about John Motson, Barry Davies or Brian Moore's stellar International football careers but they all talked about the game a lot better than Joey Barton.

You don't have to have played in order to be able to commentate.
Click to expand...
Times have change . It wasn't hard when you didn't have 5 subs , learning foreign players names , going back to player and teams histories and other things that have changed like sponsor's , VAR and even some of the rules. They had none of that.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Times have change . It wasn't hard when you didn't have 5 subs , learning foreign players names , going back to player and teams histories and other things that have changed like sponsor's , VAR and even some of the rules. They had none of that.
Click to expand...
They had foreign names when they did internationals and European club competitions. And histories. 5 subs is hardly difficult. Sponsors?!

I'll give you VAR. Right royal pain the arse for all concerned!
 
Football focus is a great example of what's going on.
They've put Alex Scott presenting it. She was the poster girl of a female football pundit but when the dust settled it was quite obvious that she wasn't very good at it the point they had to stop her doing it and give her presenting roles. It's all objective but you only have to watch football focus to realise she's not that good at presenting either. Then they prop her up by the obligatory female ex pro and bargain hunt Dion Dublin. They have 2 or 3 segments/ reports in the show of PL footballers or manager being interview again by an obligatory good looking female. You can't move for them.
It should have been cancelled a long while ago but it appeals to absolutely nobody now.
 
Here's a few questions:

Should all music journalists and record reviewers be former members of internationally famous bands?

Should all food critics be Michelin starred chefs?

Do architecture critics' need to build buildings themselves?

What tech reviewers? Do they have to own a giant software company in order to be able to legitimately speak on phones and laptops?

The central point of Barton's argument is (gender aside) 'if you've never played the game at a particular level, you can't understand it and you've nothing to share' - He's stating that the defining qualification for having an opinion on or explaining an event or decision in a football game (role of pundit) is to have played at that level.

Put gender out of the argument. Forget about 'what side you are on in the culture wars' and think about that.

Is it true?

Greg Wallace has presented MasterChef and been in the judging panel for years. He's not a renowned chef but he's very good at it.

Personally, I would imagine say, Jonathan Wilson (as an example of a journo I like) has more to say on the average game of football than, I dunno... Micah Richards.

Wilson has written exhaustive histories of football tactics and spends everyday immersed in data and covering football globally. Micah is a personable fella who says things like 'its a funny one Al, sometimes your head just goes under pressure'

The idea that punditry is just a role for ex pros is lazy as anything. Footballers can be really insightful. They can also spend their entire careers not really thinking about it and just doing what they're told. The best pundits take seriously that to do it well you need to step backwards and look at the game as a whole. Paul Robinson for example was really good on our BBC game as he had obviously done lots of research.

Put it this way, when I've watched us, I'm generally more interested in how say, Phil or Insider or Voy or 20s or whoever (i.e. posters whose football views I respect) have read the game than I am in what whoever they wheel out for post match or Brett says. After a test match, I generally read George Dobell's thoughts before I read Alistair Cooks'
 
td53 said:
Here's a few questions:

Should all music journalists and record reviewers be former members of internationally famous bands?

Should all food critics be Michelin starred chefs?

Do architecture critics' need to build buildings themselves?

What tech reviewers? Do they have to own a giant software company in order to be able to legitimately speak on phones and laptops?

The central point of Barton's argument is (gender aside) 'if you've never played the game at a particular level, you can't understand it and you've nothing to share' - He's stating that the defining qualification for having an opinion on or explaining an event or decision in a football game (role of pundit) is to have played at that level.

Put gender out of the argument. Forget about 'what side you are on in the culture wars' and think about that.

Is it true?

Greg Wallace has presented MasterChef and been in the judging panel for years. He's not a renowned chef but he's very good at it.

Personally, I would imagine say, Jonathan Wilson (as an example of a journo I like) has more to say on the average game of football than, I dunno... Micah Richards.

Wilson has written exhaustive histories of football tactics and spends everyday immersed in data and covering football globally. Micah is a personable fella who says things like 'its a funny one Al, sometimes your head just goes under pressure'

The idea that punditry is just a role for ex pros is lazy as anything. Footballers can be really insightful. They can also spend their entire careers not really thinking about it and just doing what they're told. The best pundits take seriously that to do it well you need to step backwards and look at the game as a whole. Paul Robinson for example was really good on our BBC game as he had obviously done lots of research.

Put it this way, when I've watched us, I'm generally more interested in how say, Phil or Insider or Voy or 20s or whoever (i.e. posters whose football views I respect) have read the game than I am in what whoever they wheel out for post match or Brett says. After a test match, I generally read George Dobell's thoughts before I read Alistair Cooks'
Click to expand...
Forgive me for not reading all of your post and only focusing on your first few questions.

My answer to them is a resounding NO.

HOWEVER, anyone who is in a position of any job they undertake should have an understanding in depth of the job that they are doing.
Focusing mainly on the football side, women should not be used just because they're 'eye candy' and come out with the usual clichés.
Also, unless a bloke actually knows his onions, he shouldn't be used either. Not just because he played for one of the big boys.

Basically that was a long winded answer to the shorter post I left yesterday🤦#10
 
voyeur said:
They had foreign names when they did internationals and European club competitions. And histories. 5 subs is hardly difficult. Sponsors?!

I'll give you VAR. Right royal pain the arse for all concerned!
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that football is more complicated these days . I do think the bird who sits in the sky studio on a Saturday is pretty good at her job , but the rest just say the obvious.
 
Wizzerboy said:
Forgive me for not reading all of your post and only focusing on your first few questions.

My answer to them is a resounding NO.

HOWEVER, anyone who is in a position of any job they undertake should have an understanding in depth of the job that they are doing.
Focusing mainly on the football side, women should not be used just because they're 'eye candy' and come out with the usual clichés.
Also, unless a bloke actually knows his onions, he shouldn't be used either. Not just because he played for one of the big boys.

Basically that was a long winded answer to the shorter post I left yesterday🤦#10
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what you see the job as.

From the point of view of Sky or TNT having 'a bit of eye candy' is a legitimate presentation tactic that is used in the media everywhere and anywhere. I agree with you. It's poor but as I've said on another post of my own, the days of Jimmy Hill and football being a thing that was basically for football fans is long, long, long gone.

Top level football is an entertainment product. Hollywood actors are essentially there at least in part for their looks. The idea of a big budget film having two brilliant but ultimately minging leads is almost impossible to imagine.

The theory goes that people want to see attractive people on their entertainment shows. Football on TV is now an entertainment product first and foremost, a glossy soap opera of rich and glamorous people, funded by global billions.

Personally give me Barry Davies on his own on a crackly line with Jimmy Hill and Bob Wilson any day - but that was another era, when football wasn't courting an audience of global Investors and advertisers.

In short, I couldn't agree with you more - but it's not about woke or PC (not that you said it was!) - it's about the marketing gloss that a global entertainment is expected to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top