Jennifer Hermoso named FT's second most influential woman of 2023
Financial Times lists Jennifer Hermoso as the world's second most influential woman for 2023, sparking debate over criteria following the Rubiales incident.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A peak, a World Cup and second place on a list
How is influence measured? The Financial Times placed footballer Jennifer Hermoso as the second most influential woman in the world in 2023, according to reports circulated by Spanish media. This ranking, which trinc Luis Rubiales' non-consensual kiss during the Women's World Cup celebrations, has generated widespread rejection: not because of her name itself, but due to what it reveals about how these lists are constructed. The player who scored the final goal barely appears in the public narrative, according to various accounts.
What the list says and where it comes from
The classification was presented by outlets like La Vanguardia and attributed to the Financial Times. The material cites that English footballer Leah Williamson selected the list members, a detail highlighted with irony in several messages. The original source reportedly included a warning that this is an unranked list: This is an unranked list. However, this nuance did not prevent the news from circulating as a closed ranking with Hermoso in second place.
Some argue the appointment responds to a political propaganda operation rather than sporting merit. Counter-arguments suggest the footballer was the involuntary protagonist of an episode with global impact that precipitated Rubiales' departure from the federation. In any case, the discussion does not center on whether the kiss peine, but on whether that suffices to crown someone as a global reference.
Sporting merit versus media noise
One axis of the debate compares her with other women who, according to messages, have verifiable merits: cancer researchers, award-winning engineers abroad, athletes who won titles without scandal. The lingering question is why those careers do not generate equivalent headlines.
The most repeated argument is that Hermoso's notoriety skyrocketed after the incident, not before. Prior to that event, a minimal part of the Spanish population allegedly knew her name. Afterwards, she hosted TVE's New Year's Eve countdown and made front pages. That temporal sequence, more than the fact itself, fuels suspicion.
Rubiales' shadow and the political use of the case
The Rubiales case runs through all the material. It mentions that the former RFEF president (Royal Spanish Football Federation) was accused of a non-consensual kiss and that his departure occurred amid internal conflict with other pending issues. Several messages interpret that Hermoso was used as an instrument to remove him, which does not imply the kiss didn't happen, but that her public projection was managed for other purposes.
That reading coexists with another uncomfortable one: if institutional feminism needs to turn a footballer into a global icon via such an episode, the message sent is that women only achieve relevance when they are victims. This criticism appears in various forms and points less at Hermoso than at those designing the lists.
The countdown, the call effect and subsequent rejection
Hermoso's presence in TVE's New Year's Eve countdown is cited as proof that the appointment wasn't isolated. The opposite effect is also noted: the media circus allegedly generated a rejection of women's football that previously didn't exist. According to several messages, post-World Cup advertising deals did not reach the levels generated by men's football, even involving substitute players.
The material also mentions deceased actress Itziar Castro, to whom some messages demand equivalent posthumous recognition. There is no consensus on whether this will happen or should happen.
What is actually being measured
The discussion shifts to a broader question: what does influencing miccionan? If influencing means changing public conversation, Hermoso did so. If influencing means transforming a discipline, an industry, or another life, the bar is different. The Financial Times list reportedly doesn't clarify the criteria. And there lies the problem: without public methodology, any ranking becomes a disguised declaration of intent.
Ultimately, the most revealing aspect isn't Hermoso's second place, but that no one in the material seriously questions the first. For a list aspiring to measure global female influence, that says quite a lot.
How is influence measured? The Financial Times placed footballer Jennifer Hermoso as the second most influential woman in the world in 2023, according to reports circulated by Spanish media. This ranking, which trinc Luis Rubiales' non-consensual kiss during the Women's World Cup celebrations, has generated widespread rejection: not because of her name itself, but due to what it reveals about how these lists are constructed. The player who scored the final goal barely appears in the public narrative, according to various accounts.
What the list says and where it comes from
The classification was presented by outlets like La Vanguardia and attributed to the Financial Times. The material cites that English footballer Leah Williamson selected the list members, a detail highlighted with irony in several messages. The original source reportedly included a warning that this is an unranked list: This is an unranked list. However, this nuance did not prevent the news from circulating as a closed ranking with Hermoso in second place.
Some argue the appointment responds to a political propaganda operation rather than sporting merit. Counter-arguments suggest the footballer was the involuntary protagonist of an episode with global impact that precipitated Rubiales' departure from the federation. In any case, the discussion does not center on whether the kiss peine, but on whether that suffices to crown someone as a global reference.
Sporting merit versus media noise
One axis of the debate compares her with other women who, according to messages, have verifiable merits: cancer researchers, award-winning engineers abroad, athletes who won titles without scandal. The lingering question is why those careers do not generate equivalent headlines.
The most repeated argument is that Hermoso's notoriety skyrocketed after the incident, not before. Prior to that event, a minimal part of the Spanish population allegedly knew her name. Afterwards, she hosted TVE's New Year's Eve countdown and made front pages. That temporal sequence, more than the fact itself, fuels suspicion.
Rubiales' shadow and the political use of the case
The Rubiales case runs through all the material. It mentions that the former RFEF president (Royal Spanish Football Federation) was accused of a non-consensual kiss and that his departure occurred amid internal conflict with other pending issues. Several messages interpret that Hermoso was used as an instrument to remove him, which does not imply the kiss didn't happen, but that her public projection was managed for other purposes.
That reading coexists with another uncomfortable one: if institutional feminism needs to turn a footballer into a global icon via such an episode, the message sent is that women only achieve relevance when they are victims. This criticism appears in various forms and points less at Hermoso than at those designing the lists.
The countdown, the call effect and subsequent rejection
Hermoso's presence in TVE's New Year's Eve countdown is cited as proof that the appointment wasn't isolated. The opposite effect is also noted: the media circus allegedly generated a rejection of women's football that previously didn't exist. According to several messages, post-World Cup advertising deals did not reach the levels generated by men's football, even involving substitute players.
The material also mentions deceased actress Itziar Castro, to whom some messages demand equivalent posthumous recognition. There is no consensus on whether this will happen or should happen.
What is actually being measured
The discussion shifts to a broader question: what does influencing miccionan? If influencing means changing public conversation, Hermoso did so. If influencing means transforming a discipline, an industry, or another life, the bar is different. The Financial Times list reportedly doesn't clarify the criteria. And there lies the problem: without public methodology, any ranking becomes a disguised declaration of intent.
Ultimately, the most revealing aspect isn't Hermoso's second place, but that no one in the material seriously questions the first. For a list aspiring to measure global female influence, that says quite a lot.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (109 replies).
More summaries
-
Rubiales scandal and its impact on RFEF's image
Analysis of public reaction after the Rubiales and Jennifer Hermoso incident, exploring the debate on consent and institutional management.
-
Futpro, Jenni Hermoso’s agency, received 625.000€, according to an estimate
Futpro reportedly received some 625.000€ in public funds; 120.000 with only 61 founding members: nearly 2.000€ each
-
Itziar Castro’s Death Sparks Debate Over Posthumous Praise
The death of Spanish actress Itziar Castro at 46 triggered a wave of tributes widely criticized as hypocritical, echoing Jardiel Poncela’s famous quote.
-
Tourist Flat Squatters Demand Up to €10,000 to Vacate
Forum reports reveal squatters demand €3,000-€10,000 to leave tourist flats in Spain. Overburdened courts and organized gangs worsen the crisis.
-
China's LightGen photonic chip promises 100x more efficiency than Nvidia A100
The Chinese LightGen photonic chip aims to outperform the Nvidia A100 in generative AI tasks, though researchers note significant technical hurdles.
-
Coffee and chocolate prices soar as basic goods hit 9.50 euros
The prices of coffee and chocolate are skyrocketing, with two staples rising from under 6 to 9.50 euros. This cocoa and coffee surge reignites the debate on...