But the fact remains that some players who were assured a route from their current lives had that chance taken away by others.
That's the crux of the story and I personally don't see an issue with highlighting that.
Except that isn't the crux of the story. The women who were left behind are a different story. These women and girls didn't take anyone's visas.
The national team players who could get to Kabul airport before the Taliban took over went to Australia. Some others who managed to get out of Afghanistan did the same.
Portugal took the youth team players.
The UK offered to take other women players who were able to escape to Pakistan and apply for visas from there. They said that they would take their status as female players into account on their asylum application as a factor putting them and their families at special risk from the Taliban.
The "accusation" against these players is that while they were registered with the Afghan FA as players and had local club memberships - they weren't as good at football as some of the players who didn't make it to Pakistan to apply for asylum.
The BBC had a choice about the story. They could make it a story about the women who got left behind or they could run a story about how these "only playing for provincial clubs" or "not known to the national team manager" youth team players had cheated the system.
The women who were named in the original BBC article didn't have a choice to remain anonymous or to answer the criticism. The fact that some have chosen to waive anonymity to protest is an act of bravery, she felt she needed to complain - not an indication that the women were all happy to exposed to the Taliban or to British anti-immigration groups.