Eni Aluko and Simon Jordan caught in furious row mid-advert break on talkSPORT as he says her ‘entitlement would re-sink the Titanic’ and she accuses Laura Woods of ‘gaslighting’

Eni Aluko and Simon Jordan clashed on talkSPORT as the fallout from her comments surrounding Ian Wright continues.

Aluko initially came back into the spotlight over the weekend after she called for women’s football to be ‘gatekept’, reiterating her view that male pundits, such as Wright, are blocking opportunities in the game.

The 38-year-old had sparked controversy last April when she claimed former Arsenal and England forward Wright needed to be aware of ‘how much he’s doing in the women’s game’.

But since apologising for her comments 10 months ago, Aluko reignited her war of words with Wright on the 90s Baby Show.

Her major issue appeared to be with the fact that Wright and Nedum Onuoha were two of the six pundits across ITV and the BBC at the Women’s Euros final last summer, while herself and Fara Williams were not involved.

On Tuesday, she then appeared on talkSPORT with Jim White and Simon Jordan to defend her position and answer questions, but Aluko was seen in a furious clash with the latter between advert breaks.

Before the break Jordan had launched a blistering attack on Aluko after she had looked to clarify her thoughts, branding her not ‘particularly enlightening, illuminating, engaging or charismatic’. 

He also added that he didn’t feel Aluko ‘comes across as particularly likeable’.

He then later said: ‘The language that you use is, to me, it’s steeped in the sense of entitlement.

‘The sheer weight of the entitlement you seem to believe you have would sink the weight of the Titanic. I think you have been quite fortuitous. 

‘I think because of initiatives like DEI, they’ve allowed people to be put into positions in the men’s game that I don’t think they’ve merited.’

As the show returned after the break, on talkSPORT’s YouTube channel, Jordan and Aluko appeared to be in a heated argument.

Jordan was seen waving his arms in the air and gesticulating in the direction of Aluko, who looked less than impressed.

The former England international pulled a face and looked away from Jordan.

Speaking at the start of her appearance on the show, Aluko said: ‘I think it’s more about clarifying and saying look, I think 270 caps represent experience and the insight you can bring to the game. 

‘What I wasn’t saying is that 270 caps justifies an instant pick, of course, you need a skillset to be a pundit.

‘The point I was trying to make is, that in women’s football, my opinion is that where there’s a choice, I want to see that level of experience on the main panel for women’s football.

‘That’s not at the exclusion of Nedum Onuoha or Ian Wright, I’m saying, can we have a situation where women are the main faces of women’s sport and then the men play more of a supporting role?

‘That might be…Ian Wright could do 10-minute hits before the game, a bit of colour, bit of context, then back to the main studio and bang, you’ve got the faces of the game, whoever the three female pundits are.’

After admitting he understood where she was coming from, Jordan, despite sitting next to Aluko, then added: ‘I think we live in a society where people don’t have the experience and substance, don’t know what they’re talking about [and are] masquerading as experts.

‘With all due respect to women in men’s football, I think they have zero expertise in men’s football.

‘I think they can talk about tactics but the two games are vastly different – the speed, the scale, the pressure, the physicality. They are vastly different games.’

He continued: ‘I’ve encountered Eni in short form and long form, we had a conversation about the commerciality of football which I thought Eni talked with no commercial sense. That is my opinion, she probably disagrees.

‘I’ve seen her talking on podcasts where she’s ideologically aligned with a perspective that overrepresentation is on merit and underrepresentation is based on structural racism.

‘I find that a difficult circle to square. As far as expertise is concerned, the times that I’ve listened to her – I don’t think that she’s particularly enlightening, illuminating, engaging or charismatic.

‘I don’t think she comes across particularly likeable but that’s my view, but some people have the same view of me.’

Alongside her clash with Jordan, Aluko had also aimed a dig at her former colleague Laura Woods.

Woods had criticised Aluko’s comments on Monday, taking to X to hit back at her stance.  

She had said: ‘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 women’s game should be by women for women”is one of the most damaging phrases I’ve heard. It will not only drag women’s sport backwards, it will drag women’s punditry in all forms of the game backwards.

‘If you want to grow something, you don’t gate keep it. We want to encourage little boys and men to watch women’s football too, not just little girls and women. And when they see someone like Ian Wright taking it as seriously as he does – they follow suit. That’s how you grow a sport.

‘Here’s a picture of our team at ITV. We won best production at the Broadcast Sport Awards 2025 for our coverage of the Women’s Euros. Seb Hutchinson won best commentator too. So I think ITV got it just right.’

And when pressed on Woods’ comments, Aluko accused the popular TV host of ‘gaslighting’ her.

‘It’s interesting because Laura is one of the people I would consistently go to, we got on like a house on fire,’ she said. 

‘I would consistently go to her and say, ‘How do you think it went? What do you think? How did it go?’ I’m that sort of person.

‘I had to look at the messages yesterday and think, hold on, I feel a bit gaslit here. Laura consistently said to me, “I think you’re a brilliant broadcaster. I think you’re a brilliant pundit.”

‘So I think there’s a little bit of serving her argument at this point, which I respect. She doesn’t agree, and that’s fine. But I think there’s an insinuation in there that you don’t meet the standard.

‘I’ve worked too hard for people to conclude that because you’re not seeing me on screen, I’m not good enough. That’s not true.’

MORE TO FOLLOW