Not anything to do with Wayne. Its named after Dan Rooney, the former owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers who led a committee to increase diversity in the NFL.
I think it will eventually spread to most sports.
FA adopting 'Rooney rule'
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
Not anything to do with Wayne. Its named after Dan Rooney, the former owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers who led a committee to increase diversity in the NFL.
I think it will eventually spread to most sports.
The rule might be a necessary evil. How many times have us average joes wondered by the same managers that are sacked every other season keep getting top level jobs? The window into management is a very small one and the chances are few even if you start at the very bottom at the harshest conditions which some argue is even tougher than managing in the PL.
It is a hell of a lot harder.
People are watching you and the players are dicks are about all PL managers have to deal with. International breaks aside.
That’s not really a fair comparison given that it generally takes 10/20 years for a player to become a recognised manager. You can’t say that there is x % of players and therefore there should be the same % as managers. If you went back 20 years and compared the number of black players to black managers today then it may be more relevant.
How many black managers or indeed players were there in the UK 20 years ago? 50 years ago? The truth is progress is being made, albeit slow and steady. It is something that will happen naturally and gradually, the Rooney rule is just something that the FA will point to whenever a black manager is hired so that they can pay themselves on the back.
If you're good enough you should be interviewed, end of. I don't think 'positive' discrimination is right. What happens if no white people get interviewed? Is there a rule saying a white person has to be interviewed?
If you have to have a thing such as the Rooney Rule then you're openly saying you're a racist organisation to begin with because you've had to bring in such a rule.
If you have to have a thing such as the Rooney Rule then you're openly saying you're a racist organisation to begin with because you've had to bring in such a rule.
Players are dicks at all levels. You don't think there's a player in the the lower leagues earning 5k a week that thinks he's the bees knees? Or you get a player that can't cut it at top level anymore? Or you have young players that get unsettled by any sniffing scout from above? Or the fact that you have way less money to work with, some times basically none at all but still have to meet the same standards as clubs with way more money than you. There are a lot of things that a manager has to do in the lower leagues that the PL has several staff to do for him.
The problem with your line of argument is that it only works if one assumes that we all start from an equal starting point. The fact of the matter is the second we're born, we automatically are privileged or underprivileged in certain areas because of our parents, gender, race, colour, place of birth and many other factors. We as a society have been and are still trying to even the playing the field, not necessarily for people today, but for future generations. Rules like this are mostly significant to establish precedents which is why even if they don't provide the perfect results for each job opening, which they won't, what they do is set an example. A little girl in the US for example will grow up feeling now that going up for the presidency is an actual legitimate target because she has seen it happen.
When you say, initiatives like this did not help, I think you are being very biased. We clearly have more representations from minorities in every aspect of life from sports to business and politics. Obviously, some of these initiative are clumsy and awkward and they end up alienating people but it's a process, of course there will be many mistakes and bumps on the way. If you are referring to the rise of the far movements as your example of these policies doing more harm than good. That may be a fair point as people will always push back against practically anything when they feel it is getting repetitive.
It's cute that so many seem to think that what we currently have is a meritocracy, not just in football, but in general. It isn't, and until we get there, rules like this are going to be necessary. The number of people in charge of hiring who are able too look past a persons gender, race or cultural background is tiny compared to the number of people who will, consciously or not, prefer the one most similar to themselves.
People will often say that there just isn't enough women or minorities with the relevant experience available, but that's often because they often struggle to even get a foot in. How are they ever going to be able to acquire the experience if they're never given the chance to begin with? The people in charge will go, "well, there just aren't enough women/PoC in the candidate pool, so of course the new exec is another white dude." Well, yeah, of course there's going to be fewer of them, when you make it hard for them to even get to the point where they'll be considered.
People will often say that there just isn't enough women or minorities with the relevant experience available, but that's often because they often struggle to even get a foot in. How are they ever going to be able to acquire the experience if they're never given the chance to begin with? The people in charge will go, "well, there just aren't enough women/PoC in the candidate pool, so of course the new exec is another white dude." Well, yeah, of course there's going to be fewer of them, when you make it hard for them to even get to the point where they'll be considered.
Christ alive. This basically reads as you saying "gay people should hide their gayness from me because it makes me uncomfortable". Woe is me! The gays have no respect for my straightness!
I think you might be going to the wrong clubs, mate.
I honestly have never had gay men 'prancing around me' at clubs and I'm a very non-homophobic person...
Gay guys that I've been mates with or even just been around always act totally cool, and I guess a bit 'careful' in general, like a bit more quiet than the other lads.
Maybe you give off a gay vibe when you're dancing or something?
You should post a gif of yourself dancing and the Caf could help give you tips to avoid coming across the wrong way.
For those people keep mentioning NFL, you need to remember it's very different. Football connection is more widely than an in house league. What if hundred of coaches from minority from around he world see a head coaching position vacant, rush in to request an interview. You can't simply skim through and said they're not qualified and deny the interview. They are entitled to their opinion that's they're qualified and would make a meal out of it. You can't set the standard too high either as arguably those from minority ethnic is discriminated and never have the chance to move up the ladder from the first place! Race is only one thing, how about nationality. Remember this is not inhouse league. Simply it's a mess.
25 years ago it was 16.5% - that's black British players as a proportion of British players starting matches.
You're right in the sense that the senior recruiters mostly won't have any experience of working with black colleagues, and next to none of them will have had a black boss. Progress is being made, and things like the Rooney rule are mostly window dressing.
But "mostly window dressing" isn't the same as useless. It's useful to the current generation of young coaches/managers by encouraging a more serious approach to recruitment. It's useful to players approaching the end of their playing career (at the top level or otherwise) who are looking at coaching and thinking that even getting to talk to the real decision-makers is unrealistic.
People really have lost their way with discussion - the internet has ruined it. The whole point has become "winning" the discussion, rather than discussing something.
I often sit in the pub and say "you're a twat, your opinion is shite" and then put on some headphones.
Knuckle draggers? God knows how well people respond to that kind of comment.
It’s a strange rule, because in many ways it’s racist in itself. If a black manager is brought in just because he’s black, he is then treated differently than others - which is what we don’t want. I think we have come to a point where the regular person does not separate between Alan Shearer and Dion Dublin, they only see two former strikers from the Premier League. Or Solskjær or Yorke for that matter, they are just former United-players, not white and black. And both have had terrible stints as manager in England.
Hiring a person without the right credentials is wrong, bringing in someone without the proper credentials instead of the last person with the proper credentials is also wrong. Stupid, stupid rule.
Hiring a person without the right credentials is wrong, bringing in someone without the proper credentials instead of the last person with the proper credentials is also wrong. Stupid, stupid rule.
Prett disgusting that you forgot gender neutral applicants. Welcome to This century you ignorant beast
We have many black players in the PL, black team captains, black record transfers/earners, black fan favourites, black pundits - why would racism suddenly start at a board room level? This won't bother clubs at all, but I imagine for the coaches it will feel quite bad if they get offered "fake" interviews.
For the record, the Rooney Rule is under scrutiny again in the NFL due to the Raiders coaching search...
https://sports.yahoo.com/raiders-compliance-rooney-rule-leads-questions-rule-173818800.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/raiders-compliance-rooney-rule-leads-questions-rule-173818800.html
I wonder why that is mate, I really do...
The interesting question for me, as someone who doesn't follow NFL at all, is whether the Rooney rule had a positive effect. So I guess that's my question to you - I've read that back in 2006 when implemented, there was a quick rise in black coaches. But now things seem to be back to square one a bit. Some sources I find say the Rooney Rule had a positive impact, other's say it didn't work. Debate seems very polarised, like with any debate where race or skin colour is involved.
This seems to be the general problem when discussing quota in politics too. There's a whole narrative going on over here in the Netherlands where the bottom line is that a quotum of a certain % of females or minorities doesn't work. Usually this is supported with an example of a country or an institution where quota's didn't work.
The fundamental problem with this argument is of course that there are also a lot of examples where quota did indeed have a positive effect. So I'm not sure how anyone can be so incredibly dismissive of them on forehand, or claim they measures are doomed to fail.
(Haven't read the thread Raoul referred to yet, maybe some answers there)
But this rule in no way states that any club HAS to hire anyone.
feck me, this thread hurts my head.
Why anyone would complain that a BME would get an Interview (Note: Not a job, not a million pounds, not a knighthood, not keys to your front door) for a job is a bit weird to me. I mean, how does it affect you? This rule doesn't state that they ONLY can interview BME's, nor that they have to be hired. It doesn't even restrict the number of white people that can be interviewed... all it states is that a BME must be granted an interview, as in a chance to have a chat for maybe 30 minutes to an hour (who knows how long football manager interviews are anyway) with a bunch of other people... that's it!
And of course through this process, hey presto! You have BME's who will feel there might actually be a place for them in the football management world, so therefore they do their coaching badges, and hey presto! Eventually you'll have the same sort of representation at management then you do at playing level.
Why anyone would complain that a BME would get an Interview (Note: Not a job, not a million pounds, not a knighthood, not keys to your front door) for a job is a bit weird to me. I mean, how does it affect you? This rule doesn't state that they ONLY can interview BME's, nor that they have to be hired. It doesn't even restrict the number of white people that can be interviewed... all it states is that a BME must be granted an interview, as in a chance to have a chat for maybe 30 minutes to an hour (who knows how long football manager interviews are anyway) with a bunch of other people... that's it!
And of course through this process, hey presto! You have BME's who will feel there might actually be a place for them in the football management world, so therefore they do their coaching badges, and hey presto! Eventually you'll have the same sort of representation at management then you do at playing level.
Yes, that's what it is. That's perfectly acceptable HR practice. All other things being equal, you select the candidate from a minority group and give him or her an interview slot.
How is it a more serious approach to recruitment?
The rule in itself is redundant - If they meet the recruitment criteria than they would be interviewed anyway. In the interest of fairness, why not guarantee an interview to everybody who meets the recruitment criteria? Why should ethnic minorities be encouraged over white British people?
It's about slowly weeding out deeply rooted institutionally racist attitudes that exist within company structures, and ensuring that the vast amount of black players who've given their entire playing careers for your entertainment can have a slightly more fair crack at getting into management.
Good news all round.
That doesn’t answer any of my questions but a couple of things interested me on your reply.
Footballers giving their entire playing careers for my entertainment? Yeah, there’s totally nothing in it for them... money, fame, women, etc. They’re hardly slaves! I would assume that most people generally playing football professionally are in it for the money, and not for the joy they get from a fickle group of people watching them each week.
As for ‘‘deeply rooted institutionally racist attitudes” I guess that would depend on where you are from. In the UK, this is simply not the case. Out of interest, what company structures do you think are racist?
The point in my post was that you cannot give some people preferential treatment when recruiting in the name of equality, because that’s not equality.
Good thing they aren't doing that then. The rule only states that they'll have to interview one racial or ethnic minority candidate, not that they have to hire him. They can interview 3, 5, 15 or 254 candidates if they want to, as long as one of them is BME. How do people even have a problem with this? Yes, the rule is likely a token effort from the FA to seem more inclusive following the treatment of Aluko and the PR battering they took as a result, but if it helps inspire more minority players to get into management after their playing careers are over, it can only be a good thing.
Also, effing lol at the bolded part. The UK, racist? Why, I never!
The very fact that the FA are implementing The Rooney Rule is their own acknowledgement that there is institutional racism within the game, and surely no-one's better equipped to know that than them?
If you've got a problem with it, you're probably better off emailing them about it as it's their own choice to've begun using it - rather than anyone on this forum.
While doing so you could also let them know that there was nothing in the Aluko - Sampson incident, and there's no need to investigate Peter Beardsley's racism accusations or anything that Rhian Brewster says, assure them Ron Atkinson was just joking, and inform them that black managers have had a level playing field - they just aren't genetically inclined to become managers.
I'm sure they'd appreciate it, as it'd save them a whole bunch of time and effort.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read the latest on Everton's owner suggesting yesterday that intelligent millionaire Christian, Romelu Lukaku uses Voodoo to guide his biggest career decisions...
It is not in the name of equality. It is an attempt to achieve equality at some point. That's the major difference. If we have equality and everyone has equal opportunities and possibilities, that would indeed be unfair and preferential treatment but we don't. This is not necessarily because people are racist but mostly because society always inherits what came before it. The past follows us with its positives and negatives. These initiative even if they can be wrong or clumsy are aimed to eventually even the playing field, recognizing that we need to give a push to certain groups so we can achieve equality.
Nothing to do with dancing bro, just blessed in the looks department where i attract both chicks and dudes.
My general perception of the FA (and other similar organisations) is that it's not really inherently racist or anything but more just very insular and inward looking, with clubs typically rewarding well-connected people they already know positions without doing any further extended research.
It's notable at a managerial level where we've got the rotating merry-go round of Pulis, Allardyce types who tend to waltz from mid-table job to mid-table job because they're already well-known and well-established. I'd imagine similar attitudes persist at a coaching level, wherein some coaches who really aren't all that great get offered jobs that someone else (before taking into account their skin colour) could perhaps do better. This is probably reflected in the managerial culture as a whole - former players tend to get offered managerial jobs at the start of their managerial career pretty much on the basis of being former players. Bigger names tend to get offered bigger jobs - Giggs' CV doesn't extend far beyond being assistant here during a spell that didn't work out particularly well, and yet he's regularly been linked with lower table jobs.
That's probably just reflective of a culture wherein it's the accepted, done thing for managers to pretty much all be former players...and while we've seen a couple of examples in the future, I suspect as time goes on we'll see more and more clubs branching out to alternative methods in a bid to think outside the box.
So...yeah, while I don't think the FA is particularly 'racist' as such, a lot of English clubs do come across as very inward looking, with jobs being rewarded on a sort of semi-nepotistic basis. I don't think this is a particularly bad idea insofar as it'll encourage clubs to branch out and at least consider candidates who're potentially talented but who wouldn't maybe get a look-in.
It's notable at a managerial level where we've got the rotating merry-go round of Pulis, Allardyce types who tend to waltz from mid-table job to mid-table job because they're already well-known and well-established. I'd imagine similar attitudes persist at a coaching level, wherein some coaches who really aren't all that great get offered jobs that someone else (before taking into account their skin colour) could perhaps do better. This is probably reflected in the managerial culture as a whole - former players tend to get offered managerial jobs at the start of their managerial career pretty much on the basis of being former players. Bigger names tend to get offered bigger jobs - Giggs' CV doesn't extend far beyond being assistant here during a spell that didn't work out particularly well, and yet he's regularly been linked with lower table jobs.
That's probably just reflective of a culture wherein it's the accepted, done thing for managers to pretty much all be former players...and while we've seen a couple of examples in the future, I suspect as time goes on we'll see more and more clubs branching out to alternative methods in a bid to think outside the box.
So...yeah, while I don't think the FA is particularly 'racist' as such, a lot of English clubs do come across as very inward looking, with jobs being rewarded on a sort of semi-nepotistic basis. I don't think this is a particularly bad idea insofar as it'll encourage clubs to branch out and at least consider candidates who're potentially talented but who wouldn't maybe get a look-in.
So it's your own fault. Flaunting your androgynous features around all these poor gay fellas and then bemoaning them for complimenting you with a 'prance'.
Some people would call you a tease.
I just think you're confused.
Ah thanks for that clarification - I was scratching my head thinking what minority does WR belong to?
Oh look another gay dude showing no respect just assuming, so who’s confused?
Thanks for backing up everything i said above.
I was just having a friendly joke, mate. Trying to lighten the tone...
I'm not a gay guy - I'm not really sure what you're on about anymore to be honest.
That makes two, I’m not really sure what you’re on about to be honest.
I think he's on about the part where you pretend your ignorance is catnip to homosexuals.
Exactly no idea why people can't get this. Noone is saying you have to interview a minority candidate and take away one of the white people you were planning to interview
I think they're two separate issues tbh. The managerial carousel of Pulis, Allardyce, Pardew etc is less down to nepotism than it is just their proven track records. If you've done good work in the past and have experience in the league, you will find work. It's as simple as that. I think where this rule comes in is by encouraging black players to take their badges, as I don't think the Rooney rule will help break the stranglehold that gang have on those jobs.
They should be aiming to do what Jimmy Floyd Hasseilbaink has done, and what Paul Ince did. Get a chance at a lower club and show what you can do. Even white managers don't just walk into PL jobs with no experience. The chances of black men making it in the PL will be far higher though if this rule encourages players to go into coaching rather than punditry.