Lip Reader Exposes Simon Jordan's Angry Words During Explosive talkSPORT Clash with Eni Aluko
An expert lip reader has revealed the exact words Simon Jordan directed at Eni Aluko during their furious on-air confrontation on talkSPORT this Tuesday. The heated exchange occurred during an advert break in a debate that saw the pair clash over Aluko's reignited feud with football legend Ian Wright.
The Explosive Moment Captured
As the programme returned from a commercial break, cameras captured Jordan, 58, angrily gesticulating towards Aluko, 38, who responded by pulling a face before turning her head away from the former Crystal Palace chairman. Expert lip reader Jeremy Freeman, speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Sport, has now disclosed what Jordan said during that tense moment.
According to Freeman's analysis, Jordan told Aluko: 'But nobody cares, drop this. It's definitely you. I know it. I know.' What Aluko said in response remains unclear from the footage.
Background to the Fiery Exchange
The confrontation stemmed from Aluko's recent comments calling for women's football to be 'gatekept,' reiterating her view that male pundits like Ian Wright are blocking opportunities for women in the game. The former England and Chelsea women's star had previously accused Wright of limiting opportunities for women in football, sparking controversy last April when she claimed Wright needed to be aware of 'how much he's doing in the women's game.'
Despite apologizing for those comments ten months ago, Aluko reignited the dispute on the 90s Baby Show podcast. Her central concern appeared to be that Wright and Nedum Onuoha were two of six pundits across ITV and BBC during the Women's Euros final last summer, while she and fellow Lionesses legend Fara Williams were not involved.
Jordan's Blistering On-Air Attack
Before the advert break that led to their private confrontation, Jordan had launched a blistering attack on Aluko during the broadcast. He branded her not 'particularly enlightening, illuminating, engaging or charismatic' and added that he didn't feel Aluko 'comes across as particularly likeable.'
The former Crystal Palace owner elaborated: '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.'
Jordan continued his criticism, stating: 'I think because of initiatives like diversity, equity and inclusion, they've allowed people to be put into positions in the men's game that I don't think they've merited.'
Aluko's Defense and Position
At the start of her appearance on the show, Aluko attempted to clarify her position: 'I think it's more about clarifying and saying look, I think 270 caps (the number shared between Aluko and Williams) 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.'
She explained her perspective further: '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?'
Aluko suggested a compromise: '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.'
Jordan's Counterarguments on Expertise
After acknowledging he understood her perspective, Jordan countered: '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.'
He emphasized the differences between the games: '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.'
Jordan concluded his critique by referencing previous interactions: '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.'
The Laura Woods Controversy
Adding another layer to the controversy, Aluko had also aimed criticism at her former colleague Laura Woods, who had publicly criticized Aluko's comments on Monday via social media platform X. Woods stated: '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.'
Woods continued: '"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 gatekeep 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.'
When pressed about Woods's comments during the talkSPORT appearance, Aluko accused the popular TV host of 'gaslighting' her. She explained: 'It's interesting because Laura is one of the people I would consistently go to, we got on like a house on fire. 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.'
Aluko expressed her frustration: '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.'
She concluded defiantly: '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.'
