Strictly Come Dancing has once again found itself at the center of debate after former professional dancer Ola Jordan made bold claims about the judging process during the show’s most recent finale. Speaking candidly in her latest column for Mecca Bingo, the 43-year-old alleged that the judges employed a “sneaky trick” to influence the outcome and ensure that Karen Carney emerged victorious in what she described as a “pantomime” ending to the series. While Ola was clear that she believes Karen deserved her win, she did not hold back when questioning the role of the judging panel and issued a stern warning to the BBC about fairness and credibility.
Karen Carney, 38, made history on Saturday night when she became the first footballer ever to lift the iconic Glitterball Trophy. Dancing alongside her professional partner Carlos Gu, she was crowned champion after weeks of competition. Her victory was widely celebrated, not only because of her performances on the dancefloor but also because of the personal journey she shared throughout the show. However, Ola Jordan suggested that behind the scenes, the judges may have played a calculated role in shaping public perception.
In her column, Ola explained that although Karen was a popular contestant, her position near the bottom of the leaderboard in the weeks leading up to the finale raised questions. According to Ola, the judges are highly aware of how viewers respond to scores and rankings, and she believes they used this knowledge strategically. She claimed that placing Karen lower than expected created what she referred to as a “sympathy vote,” encouraging viewers to rally behind her.
Ola specifically pointed to the moment when Karen received a single score of eight from the judges while others were awarded higher marks. In her view, this was not accidental. She argued that viewers watching at home would naturally react with concern, thinking that Karen had been treated harshly. “In my opinion, that was done purposely,” Ola said, explaining that audiences often feel compelled to vote when they sense someone has been undervalued. She added that the judges understand exactly when viewers are likely to pick up the phone and cast their votes, and she believes this tactic played a key role in Karen’s success.
Despite her criticism, Ola was careful to clarify that she does not dispute the legitimacy of Karen’s win. She emphasized that the final result was decided solely by the public vote and that anyone chosen by the audience is, by definition, a worthy winner. From Ola’s perspective, the issue lies not with Karen, but with how judges’ scores can influence audience behavior earlier in the competition. She stressed that once the outcome rests entirely in the hands of viewers, the result should be respected.
What Ola strongly disagreed with, however, was the practice of combining judges’ scores with the public vote when she feels contestants are not placed accurately on the leaderboard. She argued that judges are paid to provide fair, honest assessments and should rank dancers properly based on performance rather than narrative. According to her, manipulating placements undermines the integrity of the judging process, even if the final vote belongs to the public.
When asked to expand on her views about the judging panel, Ola did not shy away from strong language. She described the judges as “pantomime,” suggesting that their approach has become overly theatrical and less technical over time. She expressed frustration that modern judging seems reluctant to deliver genuine criticism, with judges appearing afraid to say anything negative. In her opinion, this does a disservice to contestants who are trying to learn and improve.
Ola argued that honest feedback is essential in any competitive environment. She questioned how dancers are supposed to grow if they are constantly told they are amazing, regardless of flaws. She believes there should be room for judges to say, “You’re good, but this didn’t work,” or even, “That wasn’t good.” For Ola, constructive criticism is not cruelty but realism. She remarked bluntly that not everyone is going to be great at dancing, and pretending otherwise helps no one. With characteristic honesty, she joked that she would be “ruthless” if she were a judge, adding that there would be “no good having me on there.”
Karen Carney’s journey on Strictly carried deeper meaning beyond the dancefloor. Before joining the show, she had spoken openly about facing vile trolling in her career as a football pundit. After retiring from professional football, Karen became a regular commentator, covering Premier League matches for TNT Sports and major tournaments such as the World Cup and Euros for both men’s and women’s teams on ITV. Despite her expertise, she revealed that she was subjected to years of negativity and criticism that severely affected her confidence.
Following her historic Strictly win, Karen spoke about how the experience helped rebuild her self-belief. In an interview with The Telegraph, she admitted that entering the pundit world had “crushed” her over the past five or six years. She reflected on a lifetime of being told what she could not do, starting from the age of eight. Those messages followed her from football into punditry, leaving a lasting emotional impact she did not fully recognize at the time.
Karen recalled that after performing her jive in the very first week of Strictly, she received positive reinforcement that felt unfamiliar. She described it as the first time in nearly 30 years that she had been praised so openly for her efforts. The experience was overwhelming, and she admitted she struggled to cope with the sudden encouragement after decades of criticism. Yet, she also said that the show felt like a safe space where she instinctively knew she could begin rebuilding her confidence.
Addressing questions about why she chose such a high-profile programme during a vulnerable time, Karen explained that her love for Strictly outweighed her fears. She trusted the environment and believed, both emotionally and instinctively, that it was the right place for her to heal and rediscover belief in herself. Her victory, therefore, symbolized far more than technical success—it represented personal recovery and resilience.
Ola Jordan’s comments have reignited long-standing debates about judging, fairness, and entertainment on Strictly Come Dancing. While Karen Carney’s achievement remains undisputed and celebrated, Ola’s warning to the BBC highlights concerns about transparency and authenticity in one of the nation’s most beloved shows. As the glitter settles on this historic season, the conversation around how winners are shaped—both by judges and by public emotion—shows no sign of fading.
