FA adopting 'Rooney rule'

[Switch]

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...

The FA is not a racist organisation and the rule is not acknowledging such. It is a PR exercise designed to appease the press and tick boxes.

Yes, ofcourse black managers have had a level playing field, genetics have nothing to do with it. Its not hard to understand that if they didn’t get certain jobs then maybe it’s because there was somebody better suited for them, all you have to do is think about how many people are unsuccessful in getting a job they have been interviewed for.

There is certainly a case to be made against the list of incidents you came up with but this would take the thread wildly off topic - ultimately it does come down to what people intended to be a joke and other people taking offence when there was none given. The Aluko - Sampson incident for example was a load of nonsense IMO.

My problem with the Rooney rule is that it favours a specific group, it’s basically the opposite of equal opportunities.

 

[Switch]

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.

This is my point exactly. If the FA were honest and just said that they have identified a ‘need’ for more BME managers and therefore were enforcing the Rooney rule, it would at least make sense.

It’s not the same as saying the Rooney rule is now in place and this creates a ‘level playing field’, because it’s not a level playing field. You cannot guarantee an interview for a person from one group and not a person from another group because of their race.

 

[Snow]

Yes....

That is why i stated it is a hell of a lot harder in the lower leagues...

Tbf your sentence was weirdly structures and didn't mention the lower leagues.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

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.

How is there preferential treatment? Again, this rule doesn't mean that a BME has to get an interview OVER a white person. Just that they have to be interview. That's it. It's not preferential as all the normal white folk will still get there interview. All it is doing is encouraging a certain group of people - who feel they cannot break into certain roles - that the opportunity is there for them should they take their coaching badges.

And the reason its guaranteeing that BME's get interviews is because i imagine white men get interviewed 100% of the time in this field already - so why enforce a rule to guarantee something that already exists?

The fact that 25% of players in England are black, and the fact that 5 of the 92 managers in the Top 4 divisions are black, obviously means there's an in balance somewhere, so whats wrong with the FA addressing this? It's not effecting anyone negatively... nobody is losing out... so why would anyone be against it?

Also, assuming you don't work at the top level within a football club, how can you say there isn't a bias that exists? Its an industry dominated by white men... which might not mean its racist, but its obviously been hard for women or people with ethnic backgrounds to break through. This will hopefully change over time of course, but if there's incentives to make it happen quicker, then whats wrong with that?

 

[Sylar]

Some of the things ive read in this thread are worrying. I want to say im shocked, but im not given how threads like this in the past have gone. Just disappointing you still see posts continuing like that.

 

[Player Red]

The FA is not a racist organisation and the rule is not acknowledging such. It is a PR exercise designed to appease the press and tick boxes.

Yes, ofcourse black managers have had a level playing field, genetics have nothing to do with it. Its not hard to understand that if they didn’t get certain jobs then maybe it’s because there was somebody better suited for them, all you have to do is think about how many people are unsuccessful in getting a job they have been interviewed for.

There is certainly a case to be made against the list of incidents you came up with but this would take the thread wildly off topic - ultimately it does come down to what people intended to be a joke and other people taking offence when there was none given. The Aluko - Sampson incident for example was a load of nonsense IMO.

My problem with the Rooney rule is that it favours a specific group, it’s basically the opposite of equal opportunities.

Who does it favour? If anything it widens opportunities to all. The rule means that if a BAME candidate meets the criteria and applies then they will have to be interviewed. It will widen who the FA looks at for all roles as they will have to consider people based on the qualifying criteria, stopping candidates being given a nod and a wink into roles as would have happened in the past.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Affirmative action is a good short term solution. It doesn't remove institutional racism though, if anything it enhanced it. Racist morons will yell even louder that people of colour are taking their jobs. However, I don't think there's a cure for racism, people are simply too ignorant not te be racist.

So the Rooney rule is a necessary, if flawed, solution imo.

 

[2 man midfield]

How is there preferential treatment? Again, this rule doesn't mean that a BME has to get an interview OVER a white person. Just that they have to be interview. That's it. It's not preferential as all the normal white folk will still get there interview. All it is doing is encouraging a certain group of people - who feel they cannot break into certain roles - that the opportunity is there for them should they take their coaching badges.

And the reason its guaranteeing that BME's get interviews is because i imagine white men get interviewed 100% of the time in this field already - so why enforce a rule to guarantee something that already exists?

The fact that 25% of players in England are black, and the fact that 5 of the 92 managers in the Top 4 divisions are black, obviously means there's an in balance somewhere, so whats wrong with the FA addressing this? It's not effecting anyone negatively... nobody is losing out... so why would anyone be against it?

Also, assuming you don't work at the top level within a football club, how can you say there isn't a bias that exists? Its an industry dominated by white men... which might not mean its racist, but its obviously been hard for women or people with ethnic backgrounds to break through. This will hopefully change over time of course, but if there's incentives to make it happen quicker, then whats wrong with that?

Does it though?

They're not the same thing. Today's managers are yesterday's players, so there's always going to be a delay seen in the managerial landscape. It's more likely to reflect the playing landscape of 25-30 years ago when that number was nowhere near 25%.

Those managing in the PL today tend to be about 50-60+ years old. They have a certain amount of experience which means they tend to get the vacant jobs. They were playing at a time when the percentage of black players in England was far lower than that, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. In the 90s and 2000s we began to see that number rise. Therefore it's no coincidence that the black managers who are around tend to be on average 10-15 years younger. What needs to happen is that they acquire that same experience but at lower teams. Allardyce, Pulis etc all managed lower league teams in their 40s and 50s. The one black manager from their age bracket is Chris Hughton, the only one with a PL job.

I don't think the rule can do much to encourage clubs to hire a black manager over an experienced white manager due to this delayed response. I think where the Rooney rule comes in is by encouraging the 25% of black players playing now to do their badges. Even then, many of them will be foreign and want to go back home after they retire. Can you really read too much into it if all 25% don't become managers in the English football league?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Does it though?

They're not the same thing. Today's managers are yesterday's players, so there's always going to be a delay seen in the managerial landscape. It's more likely to reflect the playing landscape of 25-30 years ago when that number was nowhere near 25%.

Those managing in the PL today tend to be about 50-60+ years old. They have a certain amount of experience which means they tend to get the vacant jobs. They were playing at a time when the percentage of black players in England was far lower than that, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. In the 90s and 2000s we began to see that number rise. Therefore it's no coincidence that the black managers who are around tend to be on average 10-15 years younger. What needs to happen is that they acquire that same experience but at lower teams. Allardyce, Pulis etc all managed lower league teams in their 40s and 50s. The one black manager from their age bracket is Chris Hughton, the only one with a PL job.

I don't think the rule can do much to encourage clubs to hire a black manager over an experienced white manager due to this delayed response. I think where the Rooney rule comes in is by encouraging the 25% of black players playing now to do their badges. Even then, many of them will be foreign and want to go back home after they retire. Can you really read too much into it if all 25% don't become managers in the English football league?

The average manager age at the beginning of the season was 48 (thats in the Top 4 Divisions), with the most common age being 45... so you're actually looking a players who hung up their boots 10-15 years ago (2002-2007) and whilst I don't have the statistics, the number will certainly be closer to 25% then say 5/10%.

The bit in bold is exactly what it will do (as we as encourage non-players or failed players that they can also do it) and whilst it might not result in them being hired, just getting an interview seems to be half the battle, so a rule like this to encourage it can be no bad thing.

 

[Shamwow]

Does it though?

They're not the same thing. Today's managers are yesterday's players, so there's always going to be a delay seen in the managerial landscape. It's more likely to reflect the playing landscape of 25-30 years ago when that number was nowhere near 25%.

Those managing in the PL today tend to be about 50-60+ years old. They have a certain amount of experience which means they tend to get the vacant jobs. They were playing at a time when the percentage of black players in England was far lower than that, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. In the 90s and 2000s we began to see that number rise. Therefore it's no coincidence that the black managers who are around tend to be on average 10-15 years younger. What needs to happen is that they acquire that same experience but at lower teams. Allardyce, Pulis etc all managed lower league teams in their 40s and 50s. The one black manager from their age bracket is Chris Hughton, the only one with a PL job.

I don't think the rule can do much to encourage clubs to hire a black manager over an experienced white manager due to this delayed response. I think where the Rooney rule comes in is by encouraging the 25% of black players playing now to do their badges. Even then, many of them will be foreign and want to go back home after they retire. Can you really read too much into it if all 25% don't become managers in the English football league?

The trend doesn't seem to be changing though. Minorities are under represented at all levels of coaching.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

Tbf your sentence was weirdly structures and didn't mention the lower leagues.

I was replying to yours, which did..

 

[2 man midfield]

The trend doesn't seem to be changing though. Minorities are under represented at all levels of coaching.

I just had a quick google to see what black English players from the 80s and 90s were up to. Obviously it's harder to find info on those that weren't that famous, but I did find something about those that got capped by England.

Of the 85 BME players to have played for England, most are still playing. But from the ones that have retired, and are still alive, every single one has either gone into coaching or punditry. I think just because we don't see them in the premier league it might be tempting to think they're not there.

 

[Shamwow]

I just had a quick google to see what black English players from the 80s and 90s were up to. Obviously it's harder to find info on those that weren't that famous, but I did find something about those that got capped by England.

Of the 85 BME players to have played for England, most are still playing. But from the ones that have retired, and are still alive, every single one has either gone into coaching or punditry. I think just because we don't see them in the premier league it might be tempting to think they're not there.

I'm going off the stats posted earlier by @ivaldo which show that Black players are less than 5% of UEFA A license holders and approximately that number at all levels of qualification. This was 2014 according to him but I also saw an article in the Mail from 2015 claiming that 41 out of 44 coaches currently studying the UEFA A license with the FA at that time were white.

 

[2 man midfield]

I'm going off the stats posted earlier by @ivaldo which show that Black players are less than 5% of UEFA A license holders and approximately that number at all levels of qualification.

Sounds like the real fight then is in getting more to get their licences, if that's what they want to do, and helping them to believe they won't be facing an uphill battle. Which is likely what keeps them away, I guess? At least it seemed that's what Paul Ince and Dion Dublin reckoned in that video posted earlier.

 

[Switch]

How is there preferential treatment? Again, this rule doesn't mean that a BME has to get an interview OVER a white person. Just that they have to be interview. That's it. It's not preferential as all the normal white folk will still get there interview. All it is doing is encouraging a certain group of people - who feel they cannot break into certain roles - that the opportunity is there for them should they take their coaching badges.

And the reason its guaranteeing that BME's get interviews is because i imagine white men get interviewed 100% of the time in this field already - so why enforce a rule to guarantee something that already exists?

The fact that 25% of players in England are black, and the fact that 5 of the 92 managers in the Top 4 divisions are black, obviously means there's an in balance somewhere, so whats wrong with the FA addressing this? It's not effecting anyone negatively... nobody is losing out... so why would anyone be against it?

Also, assuming you don't work at the top level within a football club, how can you say there isn't a bias that exists? Its an industry dominated by white men... which might not mean its racist, but its obviously been hard for women or people with ethnic backgrounds to break through. This will hopefully change over time of course, but if there's incentives to make it happen quicker, then whats wrong with that?

I understand the reasons for it. But in order for the rule to be fair and equal they should not be favouring anybody. It is preferential treatment because they are guaranteeing a person from an ethnic minority an interview, they are not guaranteeing the same for a white person. It is furthermore preferential treatment as it draws the line at homosexuality, gender and other discriminatory factors. You say that it’s been hard for women - why not guarantee that a woman will be interviewed?

Why not guarantee a white person and a BME person an interview? Surely that rule should is more of a level playing field? It seems to be pretty much assumed that white people will be interviewed for the job, which I agree probably is the case, but if you’re making a rule to create ‘equal opportunities’ than that should apply to everybody.

I agree with you, nobody is losing out. They are trying to create equality through affirmative action, which I disagree with. It changes the definition of equal opportunities.

You’re correct in that I don’t work at the top level of a football club so I can’t definitively say that there isn’t a biase, but in response to your point I would imagine the majority of jobs are ‘dominated’ by white men. If the majority of jobs were held by ethnic minorities than that wouldn’t make sense given that they are minorities. Ethnic minorities and indeed women have been successfully integrated into work but in the grand scheme of things is is a fairly recent change, it will obviously take time for them to build up experience, as it would a white man, to get the ‘top’ jobs, it’s just that the white man has been a constant.

 

[Halftrack]

I understand the reasons for it. But in order for the rule to be fair and equal they should not be favouring anybody. It is preferential treatment because they are guaranteeing a person from an ethnic minority an interview, they are not guaranteeing the same for a white person.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? They're guaranteeing that one BME will be interviewed, not all of them. White people are already, by default, guaranteed interviews. No, every white person will not be interviewed, but neither will every BME. Hence it's not preferential treatment, because one is not getting something the other is not. White people as a group and minorities as are group are now guaranteed to be represented.

There might not be a rule that says that at least one white person must be interviewed, because such a rule isn't needed.

 

[Switch]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? They're guaranteeing that one BME will be interviewed, not all of them. White people are already, by default, guaranteed interviews. No, every white person will not be interviewed, but neither will every BME. Hence it's not preferential treatment, because one is not getting something the other is not. White people as a group and minorities as are group are now guaranteed to be represented.

There might not be a rule that says that at least one white person must be interviewed, because such a rule isn't needed.

I think you are the one being obtuse.

What you said is totally wrong -White people are not guaranteed an interview by default. This is however the case now with ethnic minorities.

Did you even read what I posted? “ It seems to be pretty much assumed that white people will be interviewed for the job, which I agree probably is the case, but if you’re making a rule to create ‘equal opportunities’ than that should apply to everybody.”

If the Rooney rule guaranteed an interview for at least one person from each group (if they’re qualified) then there is no issue.

 

[jojojo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42680402

An interview with Emile Heskey, he starts off by commenting on the Chelsea/Rix/Williams story, saying:

"You are in an environment where you've got to remember racism was considered the norm. I grew up in the late 1980s and 1990s.

"You desensitize. You grow up with that sort of stuff. I don't think anything was maliciously said to me as a player."

He added: "I've just turned 40 and in my era [racism] was a little bit less than the era before.

So this is the current generation of potential coaches that he's talking about. A generation that aren't necessarily that convinced that the people who are hiring now are that much different to the ones they had to deal with back then.

And talking about the possible impact of the FA (and clubs) adopting the Rooney rule:

"It's always good when something like this comes about and people get on board," said Heskey. "The more getting on board, the easier it will be for black and ethnic people to get back involved in football and the industry."

Research conducted in November showed 22 of 482 roles across England's top four leagues were filled by coaches from BAME backgrounds.

"I see where the FA has gone, leading by example," said Heskey. "You can talk about other jobs at the FA for say under-15, 16, 17, 18s, coaches, backroom staff and all that sort of thing. That sort of aspect I can understand it.

"But when you are talking about the actual pinnacle of being the England manager, you've got to have learned your trade.

"First, let's get into the lower divisions - into League Two, League One, the Championship and then Premier League - and then we can possibly be talked about to be future England managers."

Which sounds pretty much right to me.

 

[Halftrack]

Did you even read what I posted? “ It seems to be pretty much assumed that white people will be interviewed for the job, which I agree probably is the case, but if you’re making a rule to create ‘equal opportunities’ than that should apply to everybody.”

If the Rooney rule guaranteed an interview for at least one person from each group (if they’re qualified) then there is no issue.

Yeah, my bad. But we're in agreement: there's no chance that the majority of candidates interviewed won't be white men. So, really, there's no need for a rule guaranteeing it. There's every chance, I'd even go so far as to say virtually guaranteed that, without the rule, not a single ethnic minority will be interviewed. Hence the need for a rule that says they will be given a shot. We're talking about the FA saying they will interview one BME, not that they'll disregard qualifications and merit in favour of ethnicity. There's nothing to suggest someone will lose out to accommodate the minority candidate either.