What's next? We are forced to let Mourinho go and hire a black manager to show we're not a racist club because of the Paris incident?

 

Actually this club is fantastically diverse from our owner, to our technical director right down to our academy coaches but let's not pretend that every club in the league is as progressive as we are. They aren't.

 

But I'm sure I've seen certain people moan about our Asian Star contest because it was racist, when again it was looking to solve an issue of underrepresentation of certain ethnic minorities in the game. It came up in the Paris Metro thread. Do the people who have a problem with a potential 'Rooney Rule' have the same issue with what the club is doing here? 

Like I've said, there has to be a clear recognition that minorities are underrepresented in these roles and then you have to decide to take action. Is this action flawless? No. Is any though? Unlikely. Are any of your suggestions? You haven't made any beyond saying that if a millionaire Dutchman can work his way up then why can't everyone? 

 

Well this isn't just about millionaires from ethnic minorities, it's about people at every level in the game being afforded chances that might not exist because it's entirely possible that the game is still institutionally racist at some level. 

 

Quite frankly if you're going to misrepresent the point I was raising and make a snide counter argument then there is no point me continuing this discussion with you, 

What's next? We are forced to let Mourinho go and hire a black manager to show we're not a racist club because of the Paris incident?

 

Talk about exaggeration. That's a complete strawman logical fallacy which would never happen.

Quite frankly if you're going to misrepresent the point I was raising and make a snide counter argument then there is no point me continuing this discussion with you, 

 

I apologise for making that comment and I hope you don't ignore the myriad valid points I've made including the effectiveness of this rule in the NFL because of that. 

 

Feel free to not address me but maybe address the comments that I've articulated but that I'm sure others think are important, like why if it has been seemingly effective in the USA that it can't be effective here also. 

 

But once again, I apologise for making that awful joke and if it means that you feel that you can no longer continue this discourse then I'm sure I and others would understand. Sorry.

See my issue with this is that the way it is bought up every single season, more than once make it seem like there is this almost conspiracy to stop black coaches getting jobs and the usual suspects (Sol Campbell, John Barnes) chime in with their usual spiel about how they're offered the same opportunities as white coaches but the success stories are there to suggest otherwise.

Putting pressure on League clubs to interview minority candidates isn't progressive to me, it's the opposite, it first and foremost recognises someone on the colour of their skin, not their ability to do a job.

Say we get our own Rooney rule introduced and the League clubs start interviewing token minority candidates, if the number of black managers doesn't increase (which I don't think it will) when the next thing is there will be an inquest into why the clubs are still choosing white coaches and before long there will pressure and almost guilty tripping for clubs to hire black coaches so as not to appear racist and suddenly the best man for the job isn't getting the role, ironically, because of the colour of his skin.

spot on

What a shock Blue Daze arguing the toss against the consensus yawn!!

Edited June 5, 201511 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

What a shock Blue Daze arguing the toss against the consensus yawn!!

Pretty sure other people have argued similar points to me. In fact I'd say those people probably have the better understanding of the facts rather than reading what was in the OP.

The Rooney rule does seem to have gone some way to addressing an issue in the NFL.

I fear those disagreeing are simply confirming what Blue Dave said.

Edited June 5, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

I agree with Blue Daze. The Rooney Rule has been successful in America so I don't think it can be dismissed as a negative here. 

 

It shouldn't be assumed that there isn't a problem and just hope managers will be appointed on their merits. There's a problem with racism in many aspects of society, including sport, whether bottom up or top down. I know that most opponents to the Rooney Rule don't just want to brush racism under the carpet but there are limits to how effective the alternatives are, such as encouraging black ex-players, which is why I think more obvious action should be taken.

Pretty sure other people have argued similar points to me. In fact I'd say those people probably have the better understanding of the facts rather than reading what was in the OP.

The Rooney rule does seem to have gone some way to addressing an issue in the NFL.

I fear those disagreeing are simply confirming what Blue Dave said.

But you just constantly argue the toss and repeat yourself. Like above you get abit smart arsey with people and then 'apologise' when it make a you look bad. Worked you out a long time ago mate.

the numbers don't stack up which is a concern but there's so much money in the top end of the game that if a manager were the best available I'd be amazed if there is a football club board in this country that would overlook that manager because of skin colour.  I wonder if down the years there have just not been enough individuals from ethnic minorities that have gone down the coaching route - and that could be for any huge number of reasons from funding and enducation, to a lack of oportunities.  Across the country there are more and more grass routes managers from ethnic backgrounds and some of them have gone on to create very successful careers in the game in coaching capacities.  That will ensure that the numbers at the bottom end of the game start to rise but it's not going to happen over night.  At the top end, aside from a few that have had oportunities and quite frankly proven themselves to not be good enough, do we know if others are actually being over looked, or are they just setting their sights to high?

 

I think this type of ruling is very dangerous (reverse discrimination is just as poisonous as discrimination) but it will cause the numbers to shift which will lead people to claim it as a success.

So positive discrimination then.....which is still discrimination. A completely nonsense rule which will almost certainly have no impact other than to tick a few box and appease those desperate to find racism in everything.

So positive discrimination then.....which is still discrimination. A completely nonsense rule which will almost certainly have no impact other than to tick a few box and appease those desperate to find racism in everything.

 

It's had a huge impact when it was introduced in the USA though. 

It's had a huge impact when it was introduced in the USA though. 

 

I think a key point to address with the Rooney rule in the NFL that are large reason for its' introduction was because "a study showing that black head coaches, despite winning a higher percentage of games, were less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than their white counterparts". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule#History_and_origin)

 

Now is there any evidence to suggest that in English football that despite being as good as or better black coaches are not being considered for jobs due to their skin colour? 

I think a key point to address with the Rooney rule in the NFL that are large reason for its' introduction was because "a study showing that black head coaches, despite winning a higher percentage of games, were less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than their white counterparts". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule#History_and_origin)

 

Now is there any evidence to suggest that in English football that despite being as good as or better black coaches are not being considered for jobs due to their skin colour? 

 

Good point. I have no idea about the stats and could only offer anecdotal evidence.

 

To be honest, my main argument is that positive discrimination isn't necessarily a bad thing with it being a proven success in many fields. 

Edited June 5, 201511 yr by RichardCFC

I think a key point to address with the Rooney rule in the NFL that are large reason for its' introduction was because "a study showing that black head coaches, despite winning a higher percentage of games, were less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than their white counterparts". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule#History_and_origin)

 

Now is there any evidence to suggest that in English football that despite being as good as or better black coaches are not being considered for jobs due to their skin colour?

Just in so much as other institutions in this country being run by white and or middle class and sometimes middle aged men. It does seem odd that there are so many talented non white players, but they then seem to be less visible in roles off the pitch.

Good point. I have no idea about the stats and could only offer anecdotal evidence.

 

To be honest, my main argument is that positive discrimination isn't necessarily a bad thing with it being a proven success in many fields. 

 

And this is the general point I am trying to argue, right now the argument is boiling down to "wouldn't it be nice if there were black coaches". 

 

Why? Are they underrepresented as a % of the nations minorities? Are they under represented as a % of qualified coaches?

 

The introduction of the Rooney Rule, is just founded on a token gesture. It's introduction in the NFL had an agenda behind it that had a logic to its introduction, right now a lot of what is being said regarding its introduction to the Football League seemed mainly based on the argument of... Because. 

 

I would like to see a wider argument of why the Football League think it should be introduced and what the end goal aim is specifically and any measure beyond the interviewing process that this may or may not coincide with. 

 

Just in so much as other institutions in this country being run by white and or middle class and sometimes middle aged men. It does seem odd that there are so many talented non white players, but they then seem to be less visible in roles off the pitch.

 

There's a gradual cultural shift, as a nation we are (I like to think) pretty nondiscriminatory and as those who have been in the top jobs are slowly moving on and retiring etc we are seeing a much more diverse representation in general because society as a whole is a lot more open minded and accepting. 

 

Things won't change overnight but there is a natural evolution taking place and I personally don't feel we have to always force the issue to be progressive. 

This is getting silly now IMO, forcing clubs to go for black managers? They are going a bit over the top here. It shouldn't matter what colour they are if they are good enough, they're good enough.

This is getting silly now IMO, forcing clubs to go for black managers? They are going a bit over the top here. It shouldn't matter what colour they are if they are good enough, they're good enough.

Exactly people should be interviewed on merit not because they have a certain skin colour.

 

There's a gradual cultural shift, as a nation we are (I like to think) pretty nondiscriminatory and as those who have been in the top jobs are slowly moving on and retiring etc we are seeing a much more diverse representation in general because society as a whole is a lot more open minded and accepting. 

 

Things won't change overnight but there is a natural evolution taking place and I personally don't feel we have to always force the issue to be progressive. 

 

I think that's a fantastic point, but you have to understand that for us to have progressed as we have there first has to be an acknowledgement of there being an underlying issue. I think you've raised some valid points that you found in the Wikipedia article on the Rooney Rule but no matter the reason for it being introduced, it's hard to argue that it hasn't had extremely positive effects on the diversity within the NFL coaches role. In fact it's probably going to be introduced at the college level as well.

 

This is getting silly now IMO, forcing clubs to go for black managers? They are going a bit over the top here. It shouldn't matter what colour they are if they are good enough, they're good enough.

 

They aren't being forced to go for black managers. Nothing about that statement is correct. First, they aren't being forced. At the moment it's voluntary. Secondly it's not just managers, it's roles at most levels of the game and finally they aren't forced to hire them, simply interview one. 

 

Does it not say something that we are actually considering this in the first place? This will not solve the issue overnight and it's not without flaws but it's a good fist at dealing with an issue that is clearly prevalent in the game.

Our own JFH is doing a terrific job at Burton so don't think there is a race problem it's just you get idiots like Terry Connor and Paul Ince that have been high profile failures and have been deserving of the sack.

Does it not say something that we are actually considering this in the first place? This will not solve the issue overnight and it's not without flaws but it's a good fist at dealing with an issue that is clearly prevalent in the game.

It shouldn't need to be up for discussion, as I say if they're good enough they're good enough regardless of the colour of their skin.

And this is the general point I am trying to argue, right now the argument is boiling down to "wouldn't it be nice if there were black coaches". 

 

Why? Are they underrepresented as a % of the nations minorities? Are they under represented as a % of qualified coaches?

 

 

Yes, they are. 

 

 

The introduction of the Rooney Rule, is just founded on a token gesture. It's introduction in the NFL had an agenda behind it that had a logic to its introduction, right now a lot of what is being said regarding its introduction to the Football League seemed mainly based on the argument of... Because.

 

 

No, it's based on the answer to your initial question being 'yes they are underrepresented'.

 

It shouldn't need to be up for discussion, as I say if they're good enough they're good enough regardless of the colour of their skin.

 

Which completely ignores the possibility of institutional bias/racism in the game of football. If you're saying that the game is clean then that's fine, but I think the statistics undermine that.

 

19 out of the 552 senior coaching positions at England's 92 league clubs are held by black and ethnic minority (BME) coaches (November 2014).

 

That's 3.44% of coaches being non-white in a country that has roughly 13% non-white population.

 

When you see that around 30% of professional footballers are non-white, that figure becomes even more extreme.

 

Yet we're not saying that clubs need to hire non-whites, simply that they should be represented in application processes for different jobs.

 

At the end of the day, the clubs will hire the best person for the job but they're simply going to have a larger pool to choose from even if it's just by one. But maybe it'll encourage people who think the system is geared against them to have a go, and in that instance I don't see how anyone can have an issue with it....well I can but I wouldn't want to seem more argumentative than I already am.

Just in so much as other institutions in this country being run by white and or middle class and sometimes middle aged men. It does seem odd that there are so many talented non white players, but they then seem to be less visible in roles off the pitch.

 

I have a theory about this. If you go back only 30 years then there were relatively few non-white players in the league, but over time, as attitudes changed and the older generations retired and younger generations came through, we have reached the stage where black players (and sportsmen in general) are probably better represented than in any other profession. I'm not aware of there being any legislation in the 80s onwards to force clubs to give trials/recruit black players, these players have succeeded on their own merit.

 

That first wave of black players will be in their 40s and 50s now, and we are starting to see more black managers in the league. As the current generation of black players get older and retire, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a significant increase in the number of black managers/coaches to reflect that.

I have a theory about this. If you go back only 30 years then there were relatively few non-white players in the league, but over time, as attitudes changed and the older generations retired and younger generations came through, we have reached the stage where black players (and sportsmen in general) are probably better represented than in any other profession. I'm not aware of there being any legislation in the 80s onwards to force clubs to give trials/recruit black players, these players have succeeded on their own merit.

 

That first wave of black players will be in their 40s and 50s now, and we are starting to see more black managers in the league. As the current generation of black players get older and retire, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a significant increase in the number of black managers/coaches to reflect that.

 

I think that's a very good point and is similar to one I've argued about TV pundits being largely from clubs who were successful in the 80s and 90s (then retire and take up these positions). 

 

The issue is that when it comes to race, these things aren't so clear. You're talking about non-white people taking up positions of power within organisations that are overwhelmingly white (and male, but that's a whole other issue). The question of whether these barriers are quite so easily surmounted is another one and I think we also have an idea of what 'successful managers' look like.

 

Look at Man United, the biggest club in the world. They had the best manager of all time who was a Scottish, white male and when he retired who did they go for? People tend to hire people who look like them or remind them of what they think 'success' is. Maybe it will happen organically or maybe simply interviewing non-white candidates might help. 

 

What I don't get is the objection to even trying, although I think you nailed it in an earlier post.

I have a theory about this. If you go back only 30 years then there were relatively few non-white players in the league, but over time, as attitudes changed and the older generations retired and younger generations came through, we have reached the stage where black players (and sportsmen in general) are probably better represented than in any other profession. I'm not aware of there being any legislation in the 80s onwards to force clubs to give trials/recruit black players, these players have succeeded on their own merit.

 

That first wave of black players will be in their 40s and 50s now, and we are starting to see more black managers in the league. As the current generation of black players get older and retire, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a significant increase in the number of black managers/coaches to reflect that.

I think your point is valid. Also, if non white players don't see coaches like them they may not even bother applying not expecting success, a little like the dic (dreaded internal candidate) situation in job interviews, thinking it's a foregone conclusion. As you've highlighted things are moving on.