Not in the premiership currently. I think we've only had 1 top level ref (Uriah Rennie) ever.
At the shitty, grass roots level, I've played a various terrible standards for more than 20 years and have never, ever had a black ref.
Should the FA implement the Rooney Rule ?
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Not in the premiership currently. I think we've only had 1 top level ref (Uriah Rennie) ever.
At the shitty, grass roots level, I've played a various terrible standards for more than 20 years and have never, ever had a black ref.
It matters to the various organizations and individuals that want to get more publicity. Football is a huge business. Do you think an owner who stands to make or lose millions would make decisions based on skin color? That is stupid and if they don't choose the best candidate they will suffer, because the competition will get him. Also as I stated previously many club owners nowadays are from minorities. Why would they keep discriminating and keep choosing white managers, if better qualified minority managers are available? Why is utter bollocks that the available black managers are not good enough? It's a fact. I think the reason is that 20-30 years ago there were not that many black players, so very few managers developed. Or maybe the black players on average enjoy the physical aspects of the game and once they retire they lose interest - that is a generalization, but it's possible. There are many possible explanations. I dislike that the first conclusion everyone jumps to is that there is discrimination and we need to fix something.
A. Yes, fair enough I can see where you're coming from. As I mentioned before the Rooney Rule isn't perfect by any means. The number of minority coaches has fallen back after a spurt during the initial years. But is there any other solution to bring coaches of said race to a higher level ? If there is, then I'm all ears. We could say that more ex-black players should gets their badges, enter lower league managerial jobs but the latter issue still remains unsolved.
A lot of the times, coaching vacancies are being filled not by merit (I'd have no problem if they were) but by being pals with people in the know, or being someone's son/ brother etc. So meritocracy has already been chucked out of the window in favor of association practices in a pseudo-feudal established order.
Whichever way one looks at it - fact of the matter is that there is a major discrepancy in the current structure. A version of the Rooney Rule may not directly solve the issue and may seem a bit partisan to some - but it does shake up the current system a bit. It's a gradual process and will take decades before the system's homogeneous.
B. In an ideal utopia I'd agree with you. But in reality what you're saying is totally is discord with human history no ? Prior to the mid 1900s the exact motto was : Every major decision should be based on the color of someone's skin. Because of that adage and centuries of prejudice and racial/ cultural bias a great imbalance has been created in our society. It will require drastic measures to correct the said imbalance even if it goes against the grain of what our parents preached to us of what is being taught to kids these days. It's not an idealist's view but something that should be done to correct what's been wronged through the ages.
C. Agree with you on this. I have no vested interest in this issue but let's atleast start from somewhere before extending the umbrella. Perhaps they're referring to black coaches because traditionally, most coaches are ex-players. And about 30 % players in the English leagues are black. And a lot of ex and current English internationals are black. Maybe that's the bone of contention I dunno to be honest.
EDIT :
Mate the C. above addresses your contention a bit. And to the point of black coaches being the major beneficiaries of the Rooney Rule, maybe it has something to do with 65% of the NFL players being African Americans (dunno the exact figure right now, was about that the last time I checked). And 99 % of NFL coaches are ex-players either on the collegiate or pro level. So in terms of proportion and numbers, it does make sense.
Last edited:
Why is everyone pretending as if the system is perfectly fine, and the managers are selected because they are in all actuality the best people for the job?
Would 'Rooney Rule' be legal in Britain and Europe?
Non-guaranteed contracts and trades without player's consent, hard to imagine those being allowed in Europe, maybe this as well?
Non-guaranteed contracts and trades without player's consent, hard to imagine those being allowed in Europe, maybe this as well?
Agree. I would start with this first and the action second. The data on how many applied and what reasons they were not called for interview would clearly indicate if affirmitive action is required or not.
I would politely call this rubbish. There is nothing stopping anyone from 'applying' for jobs. It's hard for employers to discriminate against anyone who has not applied for the job itself.
On the statistical evidence, seems I missed the link. Has it been posted anywhere hereabouts?
Totally disagree with your players vs managers linkup. There are obviously good employees in every company, but not all can become good managers. Same holds good in football too. There can obviously be many good minority players, but there is no link between them able to become a good manager. How many GOAT's have had successful managerial careers? Do you at least have any stats to back up these 'disproporationate' claims?
I also don't see what's wrong in the making the cut sentance? There surely will be fundamental criteria for calling for interview and not all make it, majority and minority included. So it stands to reason that with the cut, the number of eligible minorities would become even lesser. Any problems with that reasoning?
In the absence of evidence otherwise?
Because according to the club owners they are the best for the job. Choosing the wrong person can cost them millions as we very well know and they do their utmost best to choose the best person for the job.
That's not my point. Physically of course anyone can apply, but if you're claiming black mangers aren't applying for jobs then I also think a problem must exist in their mentality, they evidently must feel they will not have much chance of landing the job, unlike a white manager. Therefore something has to be done.
You're missing the point. No one is saying there is deliberate discrimination against black managers. But for whatever reason, managers of ethnic minorities are not getting the same opportunities as white managers. The Rooney Rule is a step towards addressing that issue and at worst it can do no harm so there is no reason for there to be any opposition against it. From what I've read it has had a positive impact in the diversity of management within the NFL.
Tell me with a straight face that Moyes was the best man available for the job based on whatever criteria is out there. Luis Enrique for Barcelona. Allegri for Juventus. So on.
Was there an ad posted in the newspaper asking serious applicants to apply? If I have demonstrated success in the lower leagues, how do I get considered for higher clubs? How am I evaluated?
We are talking from the Rooney Rule perspective. If it is a metality issue, then this rule would have no impact as they will still think the interviews are just a bureaucratic add on and they will still not get the job.
Yeah I'm not sure a lot of club owners are infallible. We, Manchester United, hired David Moyes. Based on what? Look at how much money Mike Ashley, the blokes from Qatar, Abramovich, etc have spunked down the drain because of stupid and useless managerial appointments. I'm sure their heart is in the right place, but I see nothing that suggests that a correct process was/is used to identify managers. Is Giggs the most qualified person to be the number 2 man at United? If not, why is he in that position?
No, because the Rooney Rule will show positive steps are being taken to tackle the issue and therefore they might actually start to believe they will get the opportunities they feel they deserve. Also, they do have to apply for the job before being offered an interview so the Rooney Rule will at least ensure some get past the application stage.
Had there been a interviews, the job would have in all probability gone to Jose Mou. How is that relevant to discrimination against minorities? And this is precisely where Rooney Rule becomes a sham. What would be the interest of minority managers who are expected to compete against Mourinho?
Again, I'm not denying that everything is spec and shiny. Not realistic at all. I would just like to see more data on what level of discrimination is happening and in which areas? That would determine if Rooney Rule is the best solution for the problem or not.
You are basically arguing on a assumption here. You assume minorities would not apply. Then you are assuming even if they apply they would get discriminated. Anything to base your arguement on apart from assumptions? Without some information, this will just be a sham.
I never thoughts of Giggs to be honest. Not sure if I am the one to ask if he qualifies, I am as WASP as they come. Suspect I would get into trouble however I decided. As for Davids I wasn't thinking of him either, there are a number of black players on the Continent who are qualified to manage, but I was only thinking of British or Irish or players used to English football. Before anyone jumps in, I do know Davids played about 40 games in England, but that's not what he is know for.
Well you're basing your argument on the assumption that the majority of black players just aren't interested in becoming managers unlike white players are.
As for evidence:
Gordon Taylor has accused football sides of “a hidden racism which holds clubs back” when it comes to appointing black managers and called for the introduction of the “Rooney Rule” in use in American football to ensure that black candidates have an adequate representation on interview shortlists for coaching positions.
The chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association told the BBC that the appointment of black players as coaches “should be based on merit” and he said that they had “merit as players and merit as coaches”.
He added: “I can give you a list of black players who’ve become coaches, who’ve got their A licence, who’ve got their B licence, who’ve gone all the way up the ranks, they’ve got the pro-licence and aren’t getting opportunities. So I know for a fact they’ve got that merit but there is a hidden racism that seems to hold clubs back.”
The footballing world is a free market so clubs would only be doing themselves harm if they didn't hire some elite level manager because he was black. If you're good enough you'll get hired it's that simple, owners care about money and fans care about results race would be so far down the list if it even is at all that it's irrelevant.
There are a spectrum of managers between Mourinho and Moyes. It is not a given that Mourinho would win the job. Depending on what the criteria is. His entire record would be scrutinized. His record of clashing with management. His youth policy and promotion record. His training methods. His assistants. His transfer successes. His budget requirements. His evaluation of the current squad. His trophy record. If he is the best man based on all that, and he is willing to work with the board, bring him on. If he isn't, don't hire him based on name. If he can't come to agreeement with the club, go to the next name. The business world (which is much more efficient) works under this methodology.
I initially was for the Rooney Rule. Now I am for anything that makes the hiring process more meritocratic. The Rooney Rule is a step in that direction because it increases the hiring pool.
Mate, I get your point...but it is not that easy to establish metirocracy in that job.
As you mention, there are numerous parameters. We passed over Mourinho because we thought Moyes would be one for the long run. Mourinho was perceived to like changing jobs in few years and that's not what the management wanted. Had there been a minority manager in Mou's place, would that become a discriminatory act? No matter how much marks you scored in coaching test or how many titles you've won, the final decision will alwasy be judgemental.
All you can do is to make sure that the 'judgement' is not racial in nature, which is a postive step...but then you don't need a Rooney Rule for that!
Fair enough, and I agree that the Rooney rule is inefficient. But if the process isn't fully meritocratic, then it is discriminatory to some degree, and what direction does the discrimination lean towards? I'd wager old, white, former player, washed up managers... but I'm just guessingg here
Ok. Back to studying.
The EU has no problem with women quotas.
Which can be seen because the EU parliament voted for a 40% women quota for the boards of companies listed on the stock market.
So why would they have a problem if something similar (let alone the Rooney-Rule which isn't an actually quota) would get implemented for minorities?
Do you mean that literally? We're all chimpanzee-like life forms with 46 chromosomes. The ball might be shaped a little different but it's still 11 men on each side of it.
It's not possible to supply hard data showing discrimination, because it's not a situation where these things are open and talked about. The idea of the Rooney Rule is to just get a wider range of people through the door. In America they found that once this happens, people start to see the potential talent available and even if people aren't hired straight away in the very top jobs, promising candidates often get a foot in the door in coaching positions or other management roles based on the strength of their interviews.
On a completely theoretical level, I'd agree that affirmative action is unjust, but in reality it's just something that is needed to level an already unfair playing field. When we start to see the percentages of minorities in top jobs become equivilent to the percentage of minorities in society then we can close the door on rules like this. Until that time however, it's hard to make an argument that this isn't something beneficial to both the sport and society in general.
The problem is is that youre bringing assumptions into the debate then debating it as fact.
This is only a possibility, but its more likely that its that they dont have their badges and arent good enough, therefore you work from that assumption rather than jumping to the cynical option so fast.
Again you are jumping to the cynical notion. A black person may not apply for a job for any number of reasons it doesnt have to be because he feels he has no chance compared to the white person, and if it is that isnt a problem that you solve by forcing an interview you have to encourage the minorities to have that interview. These are all ad hoc arguments that are based on cynicism. Noone can win the argument because everything that is put forward results in ' but the reason so and so cant do this is because they are oppressed or feel like they have no chance'. I can tell you for a fact in most jobs minorities are very confident in what they do, more-so than white people a lot of the time.
Yes I do, we have different genes to americans, crazy I know.
Genotype: The genetic makeup, as distinguished from the physical appearance, of an organism or a group of organisms.What ?
Jesus. By that analogy there shouldn't even be common European laws.
Jesus. By that analogy there shouldn't even be common European laws.
in that case let's introduce gun laws, if it works in america it must work here.If you read the quotations I put up from Gordon Taylor you'd see it is manifest that black managers are often overlooked for jobs in spite of holding the necessary qualifications. I think it is far more likely that there exists some discrimination, deliberate or subconscious, against ethnic minorities when it comes to management as opposed to the current crop of ethnic minority players just not making good managers.
.
I'd like to think that as the years go by, more progressive people will replace the older ones who are in charge of employing and choosing football managers.
This Rooney Rule thing is probably something that I'll have to take a "wait and see" approach to.
This Rooney Rule thing is probably something that I'll have to take a "wait and see" approach to.
No, I mean that you believe there is some signficant genetic difference between a man who plays NFL football and a man who plays EPL football?
If we took a genetically English John Terry at birth, and placed him with a Texas family, then the usual course of youth -> high school -> college football, plus a bunch of steriods and growth hormones, he would probably be a punter for the Kansas City Chiefs right now.
I think Terry would be a better fit with the Baltimore Ravens. Lewis, Rice and Terry.
Suarez punter.
The rule would be too hard to implement but, I am surprised that some think that the process of hiring Football managers is purely meritocratic.