I’m sorry mate but you are extrapolating far too much.
To me, I don’t care who does what as long as they are decent at it. A crap pundit is a crap pundit no matter sex, race etc. in this instance of a bloke talking about blokes playing a match and referring to it as a man’s game and being glad we have it back to being a ‘man’s game’ in the traditional sense of the phrase (physical robust etc) in the context of the sanitised version full of play acting, rolling around histrionics and cheating and overly picky refs, (which admirably doesn’t seem to happen in the womens game as much) there is absolutely nothing wrong in what was said. The mens game is the mens game, the womens is the womens; they are entirely separate entities in their own right and each with their own admirable merits. People who get all precious about that have no concept of reality or context.
The achievement of the women this summer for example was fantastic, I enjoyed it and celebrated it, but to hear the pundits banging on about it ending 56 years of hurt (like one of the players - Beth England iirc - trotted out on response to GS comments) for the English game is both inaccurate and unnecessary, because it didn’t end 56 years for the mens game and saying it did cheapens the womens achievement. I cannot believe we have gone so far up our own assess that we have lost sight of the fact that men and women sports are different (unless they compete directly against each other) and can be talked about as being separate.
They can be viewed as two separate entities and talked about as separate entities without all the hand ringing that goes on. It really isn’t that hard a concept to grasp.
Edit: if he’d made those comments about football being a man’s game after he’d just watched a womens game then he would have been incorrect to have done so and should then rightly be questioned. That’s context you see.