As a student of semantics (many years ago) I'd like to offer the following critique of the above...
First sentence establishes a fact '"I love to see women at the football"; and re-enforces the sincerity of this with an emotional hook, "used to go with my mum as a kid and hope to get my daughter into it".
Having established that the first sentence is sincere, the second sentence then offers an exception. As this contradicts the fact established in the first sentence, there must be a strong reason. Whilst this is not openly stated, the comedic value of the statement lies in the inferences that the listener has to make, which are:
"Tea Baggins" loves to see women at football, based on positive, first hand experiences with female relatives.
This is a genuine, as strongly held sentiment.
Therefore it would take a strong reason to go against this sentiment.
"Tea Baggins" thinks that Rebecca Welch has been so bad at reffing Wednesday matches recently that this is the one scenario that would negate the original statement.
I thought it was quite witty, and don't think that it is intended to be sexist.