The "lazy black player" stereotype

Needs more context than the article suggests was actually undertaken. They used Football Manager stats, so they could have cross-referred to height, weight, speed etc.

The only example given of a negative comment is referring to Ferland Mendy as “fit and strong”. His best stats on FM are work rate, pace and acceleration. Possibly FM is itself guilty of racism - I haven’t seen anything of Mendy to know if it’s accurate?
 
macheda14 said:
Soooooo, what do we think about the most recent report on the subject (that for some reason I can’t link in this thread)

Search: ‘Groundbreaking report reveals racial bias in English football commentary’ in The Guardian

The findings are: Players with lighter skin more often praised for intelligence
And
Power and pace referenced more often if player has darker skin
Click to expand...
Read it.

Why is it "groundbreaking" ? hardly surprising.

Although for me interestingly the finding stats are only at around 60+% for all the "data/categories". I was expecting higher, around 75-80+%.

So in truth the ratio is about 6:4 = 3:2 ? (better estimate would be 7:3) which means racism still exist but not too worse compare to before where racist comments were more openly spoken and harsh. Now, there are growing opposition to those comments, so commentators are more wary and more careful nowadays... else they'll receive backlash especially in social media, and threatening job security.
 
Last edited:
Never understood this stereotypes.
It just doesn't make sense, but I do get why it tend to happened --> judging from appearances essentially... which is just ridiculous because people are always surprising and different (not all people that fall under one ethnic group have a single appearance/size/traits anyway, never seen it, always varies) and appearances doesn't exactly means one thing. It's a boring "generalization".

Thread topic..
Never heard of this 'lazy black player' stereotype. Ozil, Berbatov and Shaw among many others are often labelled as lazy. And then there's Lukaku. But then there's plenty of consistent active players from all sorts of players eg. Kante, Vardy, Willian, Pedro, etc. And then there's the players who depends on mood, can either be lazy or put in more shift eg. Martial and pogba (both are better now), Hazard, Mkhi, etc.

Turns out, it depends on which individuals as a player. Appearances doesn't matter at all.

I just hope in the future, no more racism, and at the same time no fake 'zero racism' where people basically lie and say things which they do not meant. I mean if a player is being lazy, then they are being lazy. If they are the smart-creative type, then they are, if not, then they are not. Just because they fall under a certain ethnic group, doesn't mean we should kept quiet or say the opposite which is untrue, just to please people and protect self from backlash. Say it as it is factually, without judging appearances. It's not really hard, just difficult to be practiced to be the new "normal".
 
macheda14 said:
Soooooo, what do we think about the most recent report on the subject (that for some reason I can’t link in this thread)

Search: ‘Groundbreaking report reveals racial bias in English football commentary’ in The Guardian

The findings are: Players with lighter skin more often praised for intelligence
And
Power and pace referenced more often if player has darker skin
Click to expand...

Not really surprising. Good that it's been highlighted and great to hear that Sky already run sessions around these issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ls-racial-bias-in-english-football-commentary
 
macheda14 said:
Soooooo, what do we think about the most recent report on the subject (that for some reason I can’t link in this thread)

Search: ‘Groundbreaking report reveals racial bias in English football commentary’ in The Guardian

The findings are: Players with lighter skin more often praised for intelligence
And
Power and pace referenced more often if player has darker skin
Click to expand...

Nothing ground breaking. I never saw this thread and I was thinking reading the last page, I didn't know there was a lazy black player stereotype. In fact I was thinking " hmmm I always thought the stereotype was hard working physical powerful but not technical /intelligent". And then I saw the bump was from the guardian article. Says it all no?
 
macheda14 said:
Power and pace referenced more often if player has darker skin
Click to expand...

It's also worth saying that an athlete of West African descent is more predisposed on average to actually have power and pace due to a few genetic advantages in that regard. There's a reason there isn't much diversity in the Olympic 100m final.
 
V.O. said:
It's also worth saying that an athlete of West African descent is more predisposed on average to actually have power and pace due to a few genetic advantages in that regard. There's a reason there isn't much diversity in the Olympic 100m final.
Click to expand...

It's also the first thing that is always talked about when describing a player. If you listened to the radio you wouldn't be able to distinguish Pogba from Bouba Diop. There is a tendency to animalise black players so that their physical ability is their defining attribute regardless of whatever technical and tactical skill they may have.

It's why we have songs for Smalling and Bailly that literally begin 'he's big and he's black'.
 
Doracle said:
The only example given of a negative comment is referring to Ferland Mendy as “fit and strong”. His best stats on FM are work rate, pace and acceleration. Possibly FM is itself guilty of racism - I haven’t seen anything of Mendy to know if it’s accurate?
Click to expand...
Mmh, fit and strong are definitely iffy defintions for Ferland Mendy, as he's neither.

I'd say FM got it right, based on this season.
 
Am I the only one who sees the report's results as a pleasant surprise? I expected the bias to be much larger.
 
VP said:
Am I the only one who sees the report's results as a pleasant surprise? I expected the bias to be much larger.
Click to expand...
I'd say the fact there was a study at all, and that it confirmed its motivation, is damning enough

And your own post, too
 
giorno said:
I'd say the fact there was a study at all, and that it confirmed its motivation, is damning enough

And your own post, too
Click to expand...
Not sure I understood

My point is that football has a racism issue as this study confirms - but it has also made progress in the last two decades
 
I wrote a whole long thing that I deleted because I'm a white dude that just took offense to the premise that football commenters somehow influences Ed Woodward (example) in who he hires as Manchester United manager.

I have a few glaring problems with the questions and comments from Jason Lee in this article that I just have to adress:

" “Commentators help shape the perception we hold,” said Lee, the former Nottingham Forest, Charlton and Watford forward. “It’s important to consider how far-reaching those perceptions can be and how they impact footballers once they finish their playing career. "

This is an assumption without evidencial fact. He can't make that comment and present it as fact without actual statistics to prove it. The things that influences a players perception boils down to a MULTITUDE of things all including: physcial stature, public persona, education, actions taken during his playing career, network, health, family status and net worth. He can't make that statement without considering the other factors that all affects how someone is perceived.

" In the commentary analysed by RunRepeat, 643 players were referenced and each was designated a skin-tone value between 1-20 based on those assigned in the database of Football Manager 2020, "

This is such a MASSIVE fallacy that should debunk the entire study and make them do it all over again. You CAN'T undertake a scientific study that so grossly removes considerable attributes fromt he commentary content and use it to assign a result. I'll just use a few real world examples on the outer end of the spectrum: Let's pretend that both players skin tone is: Neon Green: No one is going to say that Romelu Lukaku is cute and crafy. He's a big guy. His foremost attribute on the pitch is his speed, movement and strength. Andreas Iniesta is also neon green, and a comparatively small player. What other attribute is there left when you can't label him as neither strong or athletic? You go with what you perceive as a reasonable compliment: Smart, intelligent, craft, agile. Because that is what you see. And that is why the study is flawed. It needs more variables than skintone. One variable to create a result is inherently useless and contributes nothing. We both see and eat with our eyes. When we see a dish we immediately decide if its tasty or not based on what we see. Our eyes and how we perceive something is everything when it comes to how we view the world. Tall players are strong, small players are agile, agility is naturally assosiated with intellicence, brute force is assosciated with strenth and athleticism. What's being suggested here is that TV presenters actually make an effort to not relay what they see as evident. Plus you know, I'm fairly sure that no one actually thinks VVD is an idiot despite frequently being labeled as strong. Becuse VVD is in fact, strong.

"“If a player has aspirations of becoming a coach or manager, is an unfair advantage given to players that commentators regularly refer to as intelligent and industrious, when those views appear to be a result of racial bias?”"

This question requires a study that goes far far beyond skintone metrics from FM and TV commentators praises.

I absolutely welcome the debate, there is a disproportionate amount of black vs white managers in English football and it certainly has to do with racial bias. But as a study, the one cited in the article proviedes nothing of value because it lacks the most essential part: context
 
VP said:
Not sure I understood

My point is that football has a racism issue as this study confirms - but it has also made progress in the last two decades
Click to expand...
I meant the fact you're surprised the study found them less racist than you thought is a damning indictment of the english commentators. "Less racist than previously thought" is not a good look
 
Who was that reporter who said Lukaku lacks 'football intelligence' when we brought him ?
 
What a waste. They had an opportunity to highlight some genuine issues with the game, and instead served up this bollocks.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
First up, that study is flawed in almost every direction.

Why the Fcuk isn’t any of it linked to science?
Click to expand...

Science isn't important, only 'social justice' and causing divisions between ethnic groups.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a report saying it's racist how 99% of all players called up to the ACON are black or a condemnation of the Icelandic national team being all white.
 
ivaldo said:
What a waste. They had an opportunity to highlight some genuine issues with the game, and instead served up this bollocks.
Click to expand...
Isn't that always the case with something like this? And now commentary or writing/reporting will be what exactly? That you can't refer to an athelete's physical attributes for fear of being accused of racial stereotyping.

I mean, how guarded will pundits and commentators have to be?
 
Eugenius said:
It's also the first thing that is always talked about when describing a player. If you listened to the radio you wouldn't be able to distinguish Pogba from Bouba Diop. There is a tendency to animalise black players so that their physical ability is their defining attribute regardless of whatever technical and tactical skill they may have.

It's why we have songs for Smalling and Bailly that literally begin 'he's big and he's black'.
Click to expand...

Jesus.
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Isn't that always the case with something like this? And now commentary or writing/reporting will be what exactly? That you can't refer to an athelete's physical attributes for fear of being accused of racial stereotyping.

I mean, how guarded will pundits and commentators have to be?
Click to expand...

I feel like commentators won’t be able to say anything about a player now.

We may as well just get rid of them now, as they’ll be so fearful of saying a comment which is factual & correct but which those who want to create division will scream ‘racist’! When it goes against the actual movement against racial inequality (economic is as bad I’d argue).

When they say commentators have been trained or whatever from these results does this mean they’ll no longer call how they see it & the truth but instead describe a player in a disingenuous way?
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Isn't that always the case with something like this? And now commentary or writing/reporting will be what exactly? That you can't refer to an athelete's physical attributes for fear of being accused of racial stereotyping.

I mean, how guarded will pundits and commentators have to be?
Click to expand...
9/10 of the fastest players this season would fall into the 'darker tone' category. It would be odd if we didn't see that reflected in commentary. If they used more than one variable we might've seen some discrepancies that deserved closer inspection. Instead it appears to be a concerted effort to construct a report that demonstrates racial bias instead of one that is actually a true reflection of the state of play.
 
ivaldo said:
9/10 of the fastest players this season would fall into the 'darker tone' category. It would be odd if we didn't see that reflected in commentary. If they used more than one variable we might've seen some discrepancies that deserved closer inspection. Instead it appears to be a concerted effort to construct a report that demonstrates racial bias instead of one that is actually a true reflection of the state of play.
Click to expand...

Bingo. They had their pre conceived racist answers & tried any way to confirm it to further incite division.

Honestly it’s a disingenuous report that is actually counter productive to a racial equality cause
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...

Okay, I’m trying to understand but all I can think is “so?”

Football fans still have a problem with racism, but you just need to look at any random PL match to see skin colour is no barrier to making it as a footballer.
 
I'd love to know how many times black players are referred to 'boy' compared to white players.
 
Gopher Brown said:
Okay, I’m trying to understand but all I can think is “so?”

Football fans still have a problem with racism, but you just need to look at any random PL match to see skin colour is no barrier to making it as a footballer.
Click to expand...

It's a big issue. Media portrayals are a huge reason as to why stereotypes, and by extension racism exists. I was thinking recently on the Sopranos, their portroyal of black characters is terrible and perpetuates negativs stereotypes. Then the average person watches that and it informs how they see certain groups of people, because for a lot of people those are the only exposure they're getting to those groups.
 
FrankDrebin said:
Who was that reporter who said Lukaku lacks 'football intelligence' when we brought him ?
Click to expand...
Lukaku lacks fine motor skills. Fecking donkey.

Snuffkin said:
I'd love to know how many times black players are referred to 'boy' compared to white players.
Click to expand...
Can't say I recall any players being called boy. "Young man" seems to be the go-to for British commentators.
 
I think the purpose of studies like this is to highlight a bigger picture. It may seem like a non entity but stereotyping based on skin colour is dangerous at any level, so studies like this surely can only be positive.

Someone mentioned that Sky already provide training to eliminate unconscious bias, hopefully progress can be made across all media.
 
macheda14 said:
Soooooo, what do we think about the most recent report on the subject (that for some reason I can’t link in this thread)

Search: ‘Groundbreaking report reveals racial bias in English football commentary’ in The Guardian

The findings are: Players with lighter skin more often praised for intelligence
And
Power and pace referenced more often if player has darker skin
Click to expand...
That’s been obvious to me for years. How many black players are regularly referred to as “clever” players or even as “playmakers”? Not many really.

Much more often described as powerful / strong (Lukaku, Pogba, Yaya Toure), tireless (Kante, Fred) or athletic / pacey (Sterling, Mbappe) etc
 
Last edited:
SweetRightFoot said:
Science isn't important, only 'social justice' and causing divisions between ethnic groups.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a report saying it's racist how 99% of all players called up to the ACON are black or a condemnation of the Icelandic national team being all white.
Click to expand...

With posts like this you’ll be a stellar addition to the forum
 
OL29 said:
I think the purpose of studies like this is to highlight a bigger picture. It may seem like a non entity but stereotyping based on skin colour is dangerous at any level, so studies like this surely can only be positive.

Someone mentioned that Sky already provide training to eliminate unconscious bias, hopefully progress can be made across all media.
Click to expand...

Guess Souness skipped that one then or maybe his bias is not unconscious...
 
So, it is now considered a veiled insult to be called fast and strong. Some people are nuts.

It is a load of bollocks anyway. Trezeguet, Henry, Mane, Davids, Makelele, Seedorf, Kante etc. have all been praised for their intelligence and ability. Some people just love to find an insult in everything; it is dumb.

It is not an insult to call a fast player fast.
 
ivaldo said:
9/10 of the fastest players this season would fall into the 'darker tone' category. It would be odd if we didn't see that reflected in commentary. If they used more than one variable we might've seen some discrepancies that deserved closer inspection. Instead it appears to be a concerted effort to construct a report that demonstrates racial bias instead of one that is actually a true reflection of the state of play.
Click to expand...
https://talksport.com/uncategorized...e-premier-league-leicester-manchester-united/

It took me less than 2 minutes to google and find this. 9/10 of those players do not fall into the darker tone category.

It feels very on topic that you chose to pluck a stat out of thin air based on pre-conceived notions rather than actually check for yourself.
 
Snuffkin said:
I'd love to know how many times black players are referred to 'boy' compared to white players.
Click to expand...
Well if a player is still only a ‘kid’ then you’d expect them to be referred to as a ‘boy’. Rooney was often referred to as such until he was officially an adult
The words ‘boy’ or ‘lad’ are thrown about quite freely in English football. It has nowhere near the same derogatory connotation as in the US.
 
Pogba is a perfect example. If he looked like Bruno Fernandes or David Silva would he be more accepted for the player he is than the player he isn’t.
 
Jeppers7 said:
Pogba is a perfect example. If he looked like Bruno Fernandes or David Silva would he be more accepted for the player he is than the player he isn’t.
Click to expand...
He’s stereotyped in a different way though. Because of his brand,Pogba gets way more stick than white counterparts
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
That’s been obvious to me for years. How many black players are regularly referred to as “clever” players or even as “playmakers”? Not many really.

Much more often described as powerful / strong (Lukaku, Pogba, Yaya Toure), tireless (Kante, Fred) or athletic / pacey (Sterling, Mbappe) etc
Click to expand...
With the exception of Pogba and possibly Toure those probably are the adjectives most striking about them. I’m not saying that there isn’t bias by the way, just pointing out that in many of those cases it is what stands out. The same way the first thing mentioned about James is how quick he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.