FA adopting 'Rooney rule'

Number1 said:
Gender there' equal rights now for women in all walks of life and racism in football (at least in England) as come on a long way, as for a persons sexual preference.

The big push by the LGTB community for a gay footballer to come out as 'gay' annoys me, it's as almost if there wanting a straight player to say he's gay (even if he's not), so they can put a rainbow flag over them.

What difference does it make and what as it got to do with anyone else (and football for that matter) what a person likes to do in the bedroom in the privacy of their own home?
Click to expand...

Why does it annoy you? It is shameful that in 2018 there is not one openly gay footballer playing in the football league.

It is no-ones business what people do in their own homes. But why have we never seen a footballer hand in hand with another man walking down a street, for example? Because the stigma of being gay, especially in a masculine sport such as football, is still there.

Just try to imagine having to hide who you are every single day of your life for fear of what people will think of you, and for fear of not being accepted. This is what gay footballers currently have to do because as a society we have not done enough.

Even the chairman of the FA said footballers would recieve a significant amount of abuse if they came out, and cautioned them against doing so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37680099

As I said, it is a disgrace.
 
duffer said:
Does anyone actually get interviewed for a football manager's job? The clubs mostly pick their man and then agree (or not) terms.
Click to expand...

Bob Bradley got his Swansea job because he did well at interview. I think Claude Puel got it at Leicester due to interview.
 
Number1 said:
Gender there's equal rights now for women in all walks of life and racism in football (at least in England) as come on a long way, as for a persons sexual preference.

The big push by the LGTB community for a gay footballer to come out as 'gay' annoys me, it's as almost if they are wanting a straight player to say he's gay (even if he's not), so they can put a rainbow flag around them.

What difference does it make and what as it got to do with anyone else (and football for that matter) what a person likes to do in the bedroom in the privacy of their own home?
Click to expand...

And with regards the comment about women, they still face significant barriers in achieving the top jobs and securing equal pay.

Going off the logic seen in this thread (white men are the majority so they should have the majority of jobs), women make up the majority of people in this country and yet are massively outnumbered by men in the top jobs, and are paid less for doing the same jobs.

As an example, just 7 of the 100 CEOs of the FTSE 100 are women.

Until we can create a society equal for all, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation etc., then there is work to be done.
 
The biggest travesty in English football right now is the lack of Asian players in the game.
 
KM said:
Bob Bradley got his Swansea job because he did well at interview. I think Claude Puel got it at Leicester due to interview.
Click to expand...

What about every other job? When Chelsea sack Conte and go for Simeone, will they have to interview someone they are not interested in? Chris Hughton is going to be a busy man!
 
RedStrudel76 said:
Should they interview one Disabled too? I mean why should black people get more rights then disabled or women folk!?

See how crazy this is going!? PC gone mad.. once you cater to one minority you have to do it to all otherwise that's discrimination in itself !!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why all women's sports should be disbanded and they should have to compete with men. Why do women get a category. Should be have a left-handed tennis tournament in Wimbledon as well?
 
Political correctness gone mad. Whether male or female, black or white, gay or straight, a person should be interviewed and employed for their qualifications, experience, and ultimately their suitability for the job. Enforcing a rule whereby a "minority" MUST be interviewed is fecking stupid. For years we've been trying to achieve equal rights. With this sort of nonsense we're going in the opposite direction of positive discrimination.
 
esmufc07 said:
Why does it annoy you? It is shameful that in 2018 there is not one openly gay footballer playing in the football league.

It is no-ones business what people do in their own homes. But why have we never seen a footballer hand in hand with another man walking down a street, for example? Because the stigma of being gay, especially in a masculine sport such as football, is still there.

Just try to imagine having to hide who you are every single day of your life for fear of what people will think of you, and for fear of not being accepted. This is what gay footballers currently have to do because as a society we have not done enough.

Even the chairman of the FA said footballers would recieve a significant amount of abuse if they came out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37680099

As I said, it is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Because there might not be any gay footballers have you ever thought of that?

As said what a person does in the bedroom should be nothing to do with anyone else, a man can hold hands with another man down the street for me, i won't look twice, as a straight guy it's nothing to do with me, as long as they are respectful to towards me and my sexual origination as a straight guy.

As for the highlighted, they don't though, a lot have come out from the woodwork in the last 10 years because society has become more tolerant but my experience with gay people is they have to put in the faces of straight people, You see it all the time in clubs, gay men prancing around you, no regard or respect that you are straight. Why do that? A lot of it is 'attention' something a lot of gay people crave (even negative attention), even had gay men coming up to me offering to buy a drink and still pushing it when you tell them your straight.

Then you see gay pride, marching in the thousands wearing nothing but a g-string string on, why not walk with pair of jeans and jacket on like a normal person if they want to be seen as 'normal', why wear next to nothing? Again attention, wanting respect but not showing respect themselves.

As for football, all the LGBT community want is a puppet to sit in front of the camera putting who they are in people's faces who have no interest in that.
 
duffer said:
Does anyone actually get interviewed for a football manager's job? The clubs mostly pick their man and then agree (or not) terms.
Click to expand...
I think most of those interviews aren't open to the public. Say, when Mourinho wanted to become Barca's manager he created a presentation and everything, because he really wanted to work there... but they decided to pick Pep. So there was a meeting with Mourinho as a potential candidate that looked like an actual job interview
 
Number1 said:
Because they might not be any gay footballers have you ever thought of that?

As said what a person does in the bedroom should be nothing to do with anyone else, a man can hold hands with another man down the street for me, i won't look twice, as a straight guy it's nothing to do with me, as long as they are respectful to towards me and my sexual origination as a straight guy.

As for the highlighted, they don't though, a lot have come out from the woodwork in the last 10 years because society has become more tolerant but my experience with gay people is they have to put in the faces of straight people, You see it all the time in clubs, gay men prancing around you, no regard or respect that you are straight. Why do that? A lot of it is 'attention' something a lot of gay people crave (even negative attention), even had gay men coming up to me offering to buy a drink and still pushing it when you tell them your straight.

Then you see gay pride, marching in the thousands wearing nothing but a g-string string on, why not walk with pair of jeans and jacket on like a normal person if they want to be seen as 'normal', why wear next to nothing? Again attention, wanting respect but not showing respect themselves.

As for football, all the LGTB community want is a puppet to sit in front of the camera putting who they are in people's faces who have no interest in that.
Click to expand...

Christ alive.
 
Who actually cares. Football is an absolute meritocracy in terms of the game itself, the discrimination is mostly external not internal. In football, if you're good enough you'll make it because everyone wants to win.
 
Them ohnosexicals shove it down your throat all the time!!1!!
 
esmufc07 said:
Surprised at how many in here seem content with the status quo and don't see the problems managers who don't have white skin face.

How many black managers are there across the 92 Football League clubs?
Click to expand...
In 2014, only 4.2% of FA UEFA B holders were BME, and only 4.8% at UEFA A. The reason why there aren’t many black managers in the football league is because there aren’t many qualified candidates.

You also need to factor in ‘experience’ being a highly desired trait in football management - that means most top jobs will go to experienced managers. Id confidently say the further back you go, the less BME qualified coaches you’ll find, and therefore there will be less experienced BME coaches.

It’s a difficult issue to resolve. There simply aren’t enough BME (particularly ex-players) opting to go down the coaching route.
 
Number1 said:
Jobs in all walks of life, if you aren't good enough for a job you don't get the job it's as simple as that (nothing to do with skin colour) and you aren't qualified enough for the job then don't apply for the job, why waste your or other peoples time?
Click to expand...
If you do a quick internet search, you'll find that there's clear evidence that people who are presumed to be white (going by their surname) are more likely to be interviewed than people with surnames which suggest they belong to an ethnic minority. This is nothing to do with qualifications, experience or anything else - it's simply innate prejudice.

Women used to be asked if they planned to have children when they were interviewed - men were not asked. You can't ask those kind of questions now in interviews as it's clear discrimination. Times change and hopefully we'll all become more and more enlightened. Until we can rely on that, we need to put measures in place to allow people to have a real shot at jobs they are qualified to do, and for them not be ruled out before they even get to the interview stage.
 
Why are they using affirmative action; when they can create a divide between personal details and CV. Maybe they don't want the extra paperwork for the sake of equality so they make half arsed things like this.

A lot of discrimination comes from name, country of origin, gender etc.
 
breakout67 said:
Why are they using affirmative action; when they can create a divide between personal details and CV. Maybe they don't want the extra paperwork for the sake of equality so they make half arsed things like this.

A lot of discrimination comes from name, country of origin, gender etc.
Click to expand...
Guaranteeing interviews for BME candidates who meet the job spec goes a step further than simply short-listing "blind".
 
Soceity does still discriminate against ethnic minorities when it comes to the top jobs and football is worse if anything. Black coaches generally get passed over for management jobs.

This won't make any difference though because black coaches get less chances at lower levels to build up the experience.
 
Henrik Larsson said:
I know nothing at all about NFL. I've just read this:

"Following a threat of legal action from an organisation of activists, the NFL created the Workplace Diversity Committee.

That committee proposed the rule, with Rooney saying that at the time just 6% of head coaches in the NFL were black - by 2006 that number had increased to 22%."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/29464078

But it doesn't seem to match at all with the reactions in this thread, so maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...
Interestingly 6% is closer to the black proportion of the US population (13%) than 22%. Yet I don't see anyone complaining about overrepresentation?
 
ivaldo said:
In 2014, only 4.2% of FA UEFA B holders were BME, and only 4.8% at UEFA A. The reason why there aren’t many black managers in the football league is because there aren’t many qualified candidates.

You also need to factor in ‘experience’ being a highly desired trait in football management - that means most top jobs will go to experienced managers. Id confidently say the further back you go, the less BME qualified coaches you’ll find, and therefore there will be less experienced BME coaches.

It’s a difficult issue to resolve. There simply aren’t enough BME (particularly ex-players) opting to go down the coaching route.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true, and the shortlist thing is a very easy thing for the FA to do, with no real commitment involved other than an administrative one. Nonetheless, gestures do matter, because they remind recruiters to think about how they recruit and encourage ex-players and older players to think that someone has noticed that there's a problem.

On the broader picture of why certain players do opt to attend coaching courses, the perceived lack of opportunities is part of the story. Encouragement to do it (from their own coaches, managers etc) may also be lacking. When we talk about the old boys club, it may not be racist in intent, but it's almost inevitable that it's easier to get adopted by it if you look/sound/dress like they did when they were young, or like there own kids do. That's why there has to be another, equally obvious source of support and encouragement. It won't have the same power (because we're talking about change), not right now, but it will at least act as a bit of a nudge in the right direction.
 
breakout67 said:
Why are they using affirmative action; when they can create a divide between personal details and CV. Maybe they don't want the extra paperwork for the sake of equality so they make half arsed things like this.

A lot of discrimination comes from name, country of origin, gender etc.
Click to expand...

I think in an industry as small a football you really can't be that anonymous. As soon as you claim to have played 5 years at Blackpool, 6 years at Brentford etc people know who you are.
 
Penna said:
Guaranteeing interviews for BME candidates who meet the job spec goes a step further than simply short-listing "blind".
Click to expand...

'A step further'

Which is shortlisting someone over someone else because they are a BME. Two people with similar qualifications and experience for one shortlist spot. One is a BME, the other is not. The BME gets shortlisted simply because they are a BME.

jojojo said:
I think in an industry as small a football you really can't be that anonymous. As soon as you claim to have played 5 years at Blackpool, 6 years at Brentford etc people know who you are.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was to eliminate sub conscious discrimination. If a hiring panel are googling your CV just to see whether you are a minority or not, there might be a bigger problem (I think there is a bigger problem and that is conscious racism by the FA, but that's another topic).
 
This is ridiculous. Paul Ince for example doesn't get a job because he's black, he doesn't get one because he's a crap manager. The best few candidates should get interviews and the best out of those few the job, white, black, gay, straight, 7 ft, 5 ft whatever.

Imagine if you were under normal circumstances set for an interview, but lost out to someone you are much better/have more qualifications than because of this rule? And furthermore, how long until Sol Campbell comes out and claims that the interviewers have no intention of considering the ethnic minority interviewee because of who they are?
 
jojojo said:
And of top class players?
Click to expand...
So black Americans are overrepresented as a percentage of top class players then? By the logic of this thread (which I don't agree with, just pointing out the logical inconsistencies), something has to be done about that.
 
RedStrudel76 said:
Should they interview one Disabled too? I mean why should black people get more rights then disabled or women folk!?

See how crazy this is going!? PC gone mad.. once you cater to one minority you have to do it to all otherwise that's discrimination in itself !!
Click to expand...
This is a really stupid post, you know.
 
Scarecrow said:
Well, you could actually make a case for looking into that, as women are roughly 50% of the population and it's statistically unlikely to have so few in the cabinet, which could point to a specific issue somewhere down the line. I don't actually know if that's the case, nor how many women there are in the cabinet, just pointing out the general logic.

Now, I'm not sure about this but I imagine black people are no more than 7-8% of the population in England? So that puts it into a whole different category, really. Are they even the second largest ethnicity group?
Click to expand...

3% are “black afro carabean”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
Whilst i agree diversity and equal rights is a very important issue (which really should be solved at this stage). I think hiring people based on their race, sexual orientation or gender is really a crappy way to run a business. It in theory should be whoever fits a certain role within a company gets the job.

As an example look at the South African rugby team, not only are they supposed to include a certain number of black players in their squad - even if there are better players in their positions available and being over looked. But also their coaching staff has to meet certain ethnic quotas, which has completely decimated their ability to compete. They have gone from being a top 3 nation to being lucky to be top 10.
 
jojojo said:
And of top class players?
Click to expand...

This is absolutely crucial and being overlooked by many (purposely in some cases, I feel).

Pro football is about ability, and football management/coaching is about having experience and knowledge of the game at the highest levels.

Football managers are pretty much always ex-players of some degree, and the amount of top level players who are BME is very high, yet the amount of those players who get to go into management is very, very low...

To suggest that the reason for this lies within those players - who were smart enough to excel within tactically demanding elite level football for their whole careers, and who were driven enough to succeed in the hyper-competitive world of pro sports - is just laughable.

On the other hand we know, factually know, that the institution they've been working within is institutionally racist, and elite managers of recent history will come out with things like 'dozy ni**er' casually in a conversation.

I can't wait for the talent pool to be widened from a handful of just about capable midtable ever-presents, to a broader and better selection of minds.

And it will benefit the game no end.
 
When you said the FA "Rooney rule" I assumed that'd mean banning anyone for 2 games for swearing on a football pitch, even though they'll miss the FA Cup semi-final...
 
Rhyme Animal said:
This is absolutely crucial and being overlooked by many (purposely in some cases, I feel).

Pro football is about ability, and football management/coaching is about having experience and knowledge of the game at the highest levels.

Football managers are pretty much always ex-players of some degree, and the amount of top level players who are BME is very high, yet the amount of those players who get to go into management is very, very low...

To suggest that the reason for this lies within those players - who were smart enough to excel within tactically demanding elite level football for their whole careers, and who were driven enough to succeed in the hyper-competitive world of pro sports - is just laughable.

On the other hand we know, factually know, that the institution they've been working within is institutionally racist, and elite managers of recent history will come out with things like 'dozy ni**er' casually in a conversation.

I can't wait for the talent pool to be widened from a handful of just about capable midtable ever-presents, to a broader and better selection of minds.

And it will benefit the game no end.
Click to expand...
What you're basically arguing is that when minorities are overrepresented, it's because of ability, and when they're underrepresented it's because of racism.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
What you're basically arguing is that when minorities are overrepresented, it's because of ability, and when they're underrepresented it's because of racism.
Click to expand...

If that's the take away you got from my post, I'd suggest that you've got an agenda on this specific topic.

My point is that football management is about elite level footy knowledge - and that there is an incredibly high number of BME players/ex players who have that knowledge, and yet a phenomenally low number of those BME players who get to go into management.

This will change in coming years, and I can't wait, cuz I love football.
 
Revaulx said:
Positive discrimination involves intentionally disadvantaging non-minority (i.e. white) candidates. This isn't.
The purpose of it is to force people to interview someone who IS good enough for the job but wouldn't otherwise be interviewed owing to not belonging to the right golf club, or whatever.
Well yes, but I suppose that, looking at the bigger picture, even being present as a token minority might be better than not being present at all.
Click to expand...
I'm aware. It's also an oxymoron. There's no such thing as 'positive discrimination' it's just discrimination. I'm all for more diversity in every single aspect of life but forcing people to interview a person from a minority 'just because' is not the right way to go about it.
 
I think it's worth a go. If those who follow NFL closely disagree then I'd obviously listen to their thoughts. Not so much those who are just going on about political correctness gone mad.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
If that's the take away you got from my post, I'd suggest that you've got an agenda on this specific topic.

My point is that football management is about elite level footy knowledge - and that there is an incredibly high number of BME players/ex players who have that knowledge, and yet a phenomenally low number of those BME players who get to go into management.

This will change in coming years, and I can't wait, cuz I love football.
Click to expand...
There are prerequisites to becoming a football manager; one of them is having a coaching badge. As I had posted previously, the percentage of qualified BME coaches is incredibly small. We are looking at between 4 and 5%. The majority of those will be newly qualified and will not have the 'experience' that is so often looked for in top jobs. Looking strictly at the number of BME players and it's correlation isn't going to cut it. You're simplifying.
 
ivaldo said:
There are prerequisites to becoming a football manager; one of them is having a coaching badge. As I had posted previously, the percentage of qualified BME coaches is incredibly small. We are looking at between 4 and 5%. The majority of those will be newly qualified and will not have the 'experience' that is so often looked for in top jobs. Looking strictly at the number of BME players and it's correlation isn't going to cut it. You're simplifying.
Click to expand...

There's a reason so few BME players are bothering to even try and get managerial positions, and that reason is institutional.

The Rooney rule is about addressing that. It isn't just about the interview, it's got deeper implications.

Institutional prejudice is a complex and multi-layered problem that takes a lot of time to understand fully - even for those affected by it.

Unless you are truly vested in understanding it, and care about leveling the field, in all areas, you're gonna often be arguing superfluous points. Increasingly so, as society moves forward with this stuff.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
There's a reason so few BME players are bothering to even try and get managerial positions, and that reason is institutional.

The Rooney rule is about addressing that. It isn't just about the interview, it's got deeper implications.

Institutional prejudice is a complex and multi-layered problem that takes a lot of time to understand fully - even for those affected by it.

Unless you are truly vested in understanding it, and care about leveling the field, in all areas, you're gonna often be arguing superfluous points. Increasingly so, as society moves forward with this stuff.
Click to expand...
We can't make the argument that BME managers aren't being picked because of institutional racism when there are no BME managers to pick! Those that have been given an opportunity have so far by and large failed. You're taking a massive leap to fit your own predetermined view here. Yes, there is institutional racism in football, but to what degree? We've seen a massive increase in BME players over the last 30 years within that very same industry. Why are you so certain we would not see a similarly substantial increase in BME management within the football leagues if there was an opportunity to do so? We're moved into a footballing culture where success means everything. Directors and owners of clubs aren't afforded the luxury of time anymore. They need the very best, and will select the very best. A lack of information is leading to this problem and there seems to be no willingness to make it available. Perhaps minorities wouldn't feel so disinclined to go for their coaching badges if they actually understood a big reason for underrepresentation is because clubs simply can't higher BME manager due to a lack of supply.

If there was a high number of BME coaches failing to secure positions then perhaps this ruling would have some function, but that simply isn't the case right now.
 
ivaldo said:
We can't make the argument that BME managers aren't being picked because of institutional racism when there are no BME managers to pick! Those that have been given an opportunity have so far by and large failed. You're taking a massive leap to fit your own predetermined view here. Yes, there is institutional racism in football, but to what degree? We've seen a massive increase in BME players over the last 30 years within that very same industry. Why are you so certain we would not see a similarly substantial increase in BME management within the football leagues if there was an opportunity to do so? We're moved into a footballing culture where success means everything. Directors and owners of clubs aren't afforded the luxury of time anymore. They need the very best, and will select the very best.

If there was a high number of BME coaches failing to secure positions then perhaps this ruling would have some function, but that simply isn't the case right now.
Click to expand...

Well, time will tell, mate.

We'll agree to disagree, but hopefully whatever the outcome it benefits the game, that's the bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.