Is it 'rightly so' (i.e. necessary) in all cases, though? Or should it also depend on the individual case of the specific Sport - and the version of it ( male / female) - being shown, and it's demographic, levels of diversity, etc, and reflecting that representation in the 'balance' of the coverage?
Yes, it's now the 'Main Tour' because there's spots for some female players - but there's only 4 out of about 128 players, and they've barely won any matches between them so they're making no impact on it, so I don't see why there currently has to be a sense that 'we need a female pundit' for balance. Especially when, as you say, there's only really one to choose from compared to endless amount of current / former male players so common sense should say it's just simple numbers, not sexism, to see an all male punditry panel on Snooker.
She's as knowledgeable as most of the others, so no issue at all with her being amongst the list of many pundits - but not a great accent and a rather boring delivery, and only has about one win ever on the Main Tour, and a high ranking of about 115, so definitely doesn't deserve such a contrastingly high amount of punditry work to others when based on merit. But, as you say, she's going to be everywhere because of 'balance' - which is a contradiction as it actually creates an imbalance in terms of how much punditry work she's getting compared to others.
