Rooney Rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Whatever the root cause, there's clearly some sort of anomaly in terms of the proportion of black players vs managers. I'm sure the reasons are complex but, by the sound of it, the Rooney rule is pretty harmless - it isn't stopping anyone else from getting an interview - so it sounds like a reasonable thing to try.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Whatever the root cause, there's clearly some sort of anomaly in terms of the proportion of black players vs managers. I'm sure the reasons are complex but, by the sound of it, the Rooney rule is pretty harmless - it isn't stopping anyone else from getting an interview - so it sounds like a reasonable thing to try.
Click to expand...

There isn't though. There are 2 black managers in the English football league, which is made up of 92 clubs, so a shade over 2%. A couple of years ago there was 6, so around 7%. They were sacked because they were poor at their job, not because they were black. Still I digress, Ince and Houghton were playing in the 80's and 90's, when the number of black players was much much less than it is now. The stat we should be looking at is the percentage of white players from the same era who decided to get their coaching badges and have now become coaches in England versus the number of black players from the same era that did that same. The fact that there are now 25% of black players in the English football league suggests to me that in 15-20 years time, the number of black managers / coaches will increase accordingly, but it means little as to the number of black coaches there are now.

Perhaps we should introduce a rule that states at least one of the candidates has to be English... and another has to be a woman.
 
woody69 said:
There isn't though. There are 2 black managers in the English football league, which is made up of 92 clubs, so a shade over 2%. A couple of years ago there was 6, so around 7%. They were sacked because they were poor at their job, not because they were black. Still I digress, Ince and Houghton were playing in the 80's and 90's, when the number of black players was much much less than it is now. The stat we should be looking at is the percentage of white players from the same era who decided to get their coaching badges and have now become coaches in England versus the number of black players from the same era that did that same. The fact that there are now 25% of black players in the English football league suggests to me that in 15-20 years time, the number of black managers / coaches will increase accordingly, but it means little as to the number of black coaches there are now.

Perhaps we should introduce a rule that states at least one of the candidates has to be English... and another has to be a woman.
Click to expand...

Excellent post
 
c1973 said:
How do they go about ensuring x amount of blacks (what about the lack of Asian, Latino, women etc managers btw) get an interview? Is it not breaking employment law asking an applicant what their skin colour/race is?

I concede I may be wrong on that point, but don't think I am.

As for the 'old pals act', are we expected to believe that black players did not make contacts within the game? Or is it just the white players that did? :mmm:

Look, racism is abhorrent, as is sexism, but you don't solve the problem by discriminating against another group of people. Imo that approach is more likely to lead to friction and a lack of respect for the person involved (she/he only got that job because they are black/female).

Another thing, has anyone considered that maybe there aren't many blacks applying for these jobs? Why just blacks, why not make sure we have x% women managers?

A tricky subject, but discriminating to stop discrimination is as ridiculous as it sounds. It should be against the law.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, who is the Rooney rule discriminating against when it comes to a level playing field to get an interview? Which is what it is trying to address. Many white candidates will still be interviewed, so surely they are not being discriminated against?
 
Hacker Khan said:
Genuine question, who is the Rooney rule discriminating against when it comes to a level playing field to get an interview? Which is what it is trying to address. Many white candidates will still be interviewed, so surely they are not being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

For the sake of debate here's a scenario (and I'm well aware that this one is set up purely to illustrate my point)

100 people apply, 50/50 split white/black. 10 whites are (let's grade them for the purpose of discussion) grade 1, they get an interview, 0 blacks are grade 1, no interview.

Now to make it 'fair' 5 grade 2 blacks get an interview just to meet quotas, but no grade 2 whites get an interview as the HR person has decided previously only to interview the grade 1s. Those whites in the grade 2 bracket are the ones being discriminated against.

Now, I'm all for equality, there is no place for racism as far as I'm concerned. If your good enough for the job, that should be all there is to consider. However, equality means just that - equal - no favouritism on grounds of race and no discrimination; positive or negative!

You are not equal if you get an interview purely because of your race/skin tone, you are being favoured. And that is wrong.
 
I just asked a guy at work about this, he's in the US, he's an (amateur) American football coach, and he's black. His view was that in the US, it was desperately needed. Their numbers were more extreme though - he said that at the time the rule was invented, 12.5% of the population was black, 76% of players were black, but there were zero black head coaches. He also said that when the rule came in, it was accepted by everyone very quickly and it made a huge difference.

Those numbers are very different to ours and are so extreme that you can see why the US decided to act. But how extreme would our numbers have to be before we think the same? When you put it like that, I think it it stops being so black and white (pun fully intended) and just becomes a question of where would you put the trigger point?

Woody69 makes a good point about the 20-year gap between a player's playing time and becoming a manager, would be interesting to see what the stats were for players and for numbers on coaching courses in the 80s and 90s. I still think though that waiting another 20 years for the numbers to feed through isn't acceptable, if the sport was making mistakes 20 years ago then surely the onus is on the modern sport to try and redress the balance?
 
c1973 said:
For the sake of debate here's a scenario (and I'm well aware that this one is set up purely to illustrate my point)

100 people apply, 50/50 split white/black. 10 whites are (let's grade them for the purpose of discussion) grade 1, they get an interview, 0 blacks are grade 1, no interview.

Now to make it 'fair' 5 grade 2 blacks get an interview just to meet quotas, but no grade 2 whites get an interview as the HR person has decided previously only to interview the grade 1s. Those whites in the grade 2 bracket are the ones being discriminated against.

Now, I'm all for equality, there is no place for racism as far as I'm concerned. If your good enough for the job, that should be all there is to consider. However, equality means just that - equal - no favouritism on grounds of race and no discrimination; positive or negative!

You are not equal if you get an interview purely because of your race/skin tone, you are being favoured. And that is wrong.
Click to expand...

So some people who weren't originally getting an interview, still haven't got an interview. So no one loses there. 10 people who were getting an interview, still get an interview. No losers there either. 5 people who weren't getting an interview, now do get an interview. So no losers there. In essence, no one is being discriminated against except for the interview panel who have 50% more work to do.
Is there a way to help them? Will someone please think of the interview panel.
 
bluewolf said:
So some people who weren't originally getting an interview, still haven't got an interview. So no one loses there. 10 people who were getting an interview, still get an interview. No losers there either. 5 people who weren't getting an interview, now do get an interview. So no losers there. In essence, no one is being discriminated against except for the interview panel who have 50% more work to do.
Is there a way to help them? Will someone please think of the interview panel.
Click to expand...

So why shouldn't the grade 2 whites (in my example) get an interview? Others of a similar quality are. That's discrimination, plain and simple.

I've stated my thoughts and accept that others might disagree.
 
c1973 said:
So why shouldn't the grade 2 whites (in my example) get an interview? Others of a similar quality are. That's discrimination, plain and simple.

I've stated my thoughts and accept that others might disagree.
Click to expand...

I fully accept your opinion, but I fundamentally disagree with it. But we've been over this before and no one is going to change their mind.

I keep telling myself to stop posting on these threads, but I obviously have masochistic tendencies. :D
 
bluewolf said:
I fully accept your opinion, but I fundamentally disagree with it. But we've been over this before and no one is going to change their mind.

I keep telling myself to stop posting on these threads, but I obviously have masochistic tendencies. :D
Click to expand...

Yep. It's probably best to avoid these threads. As I say, I'm all for equality, I just think positive discrimination is the wrong way to go......don't ask me the right way to go about it though, I wouldn't know where to start. :)
 
c1973 said:
For the sake of debate here's a scenario (and I'm well aware that this one is set up purely to illustrate my point)

100 people apply, 50/50 split white/black. 10 whites are (let's grade them for the purpose of discussion) grade 1, they get an interview, 0 blacks are grade 1, no interview.

Now to make it 'fair' 5 grade 2 blacks get an interview just to meet quotas, but no grade 2 whites get an interview as the HR person has decided previously only to interview the grade 1s. Those whites in the grade 2 bracket are the ones being discriminated against.

Now, I'm all for equality, there is no place for racism as far as I'm concerned. If your good enough for the job, that should be all there is to consider. However, equality means just that - equal - no favouritism on grounds of race and no discrimination; positive or negative!

You are not equal if you get an interview purely because of your race/skin tone, you are being favoured. And that is wrong.
Click to expand...

In that situation then yes it makes no sense. But with the greatest of respect, as you acknowledge, yours is a completely skewed example to try and prove a point. I think the issue is that why are black coaches who do have the qualifications, or in your example are grade 1, not get a chance. Which is where the alleged racism is coming in.

I totally agree that we need more stats into how many black coaches have the necessary qualifications. But from the debates I've seen black players have explicitly stated that they do not want to be be fast tracked with no qualifications just because they are black.

And I also totally agree that in a perfect world there would be total equality. But to me the question is what do you do if that is not the case? Do you not introduce something that could be slightly discriminating against a group that has been the discriminators? As it will be unfair on them. Even though they are still being discriminatory to others? Or do sometimes the end justifies the means?
 
Hacker Khan said:
In that situation then yes it makes no sense. But with the greatest of respect, as you acknowledge, yours is a completely skewed example to try and prove a point. I think the issue is that why are black coaches who do have the qualifications, or in your example are grade 1, not get a chance. Which is where the alleged racism is coming in.

I totally agree that we need more stats into how many black coaches have the necessary qualifications. But from the debates I've seen black players have explicitly stated that they do not want to be be fast tracked with no qualifications just because they are black.

And I also totally agree that in a perfect world there would be total equality. But to me the question is what do you do if that is not the case? Do you not introduce something that could be slightly discriminating against a group that has been the discriminators? As it will be unfair on them. Even though they are still being discriminatory to others? Or do sometimes the end justifies the means?
Click to expand...


Nope, not in my book you don't. As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure what the answer is (in general).

There appears to be an assumption that those possibly adversely affected (by positive discrimination) are discriminating against others, and by extension could be viewed as racist. Not sure if that's the case at all (or indeed if that was the intention of that part of your post).

Where I think we obviously agree is on the need to eradicate racism from all areas of society, I reckon we disagree how to go about it though. :)
 
Last edited:
Hacker Khan said:
In that situation then yes it makes no sense. But with the greatest of respect, as you acknowledge, yours is a completely skewed example to try and prove a point. I think the issue is that why are black coaches who do have the qualifications, or in your example are grade 1, not get a chance. Which is where the alleged racism is coming in.

I totally agree that we need more stats into how many black coaches have the necessary qualifications. But from the debates I've seen black players have explicitly stated that they do not want to be be fast tracked with no qualifications just because they are black.

And I also totally agree that in a perfect world there would be total equality. But to me the question is what do you do if that is not the case? Do you not introduce something that could be slightly discriminating against a group that has been the discriminators? As it will be unfair on them. Even though they are still being discriminatory to others? Or do sometimes the end justifies the means?
Click to expand...

But if the reason that they are not being interviewed is purely racist how will interviewing them make any difference they still will not get the job
 
In view of the disproportionately high number of players who are black the question must surely be why only an apparently small amount of those same players subsequently seek the necessary qualifications to coach and manage at the highest level.

If it is because they feel that it would be futile as due to racist attitudes they would not succeed in securing a job then surely something must be done.

In general "affirmative action" makes me uneasy but when perceived attitudes are deterring people of whatever race and in whatever profession then, if only in the short term, it may be needed.

I only wish our politicians were equally committed to ending discrimination. Women only short lists were rightly introduced by Labour but then conveniently overlooked when it came to finding a seat for Harriet Harman's husband and again now that the sons of Blair & Straw are seeking seats.
 
freddielong said:
But if the reason that they are not being interviewed is purely racist how will interviewing them make any difference they still will not get the job
Click to expand...

You would think that would be the case, wouldn't you? But the only set of evidence that we have (from the NFL implementation of this rule) suggests that actually, it works. It might be a small sample size but it's all we've got to go on. And if it turns out it doesn't work, and no black managers are appointed - well, nothing has changed, nobody lost anything that they would have had previously, and at least it was given a shot.
 
I have applied for jobs in the engineering sector back home which stated it would encourage applicants from protestant backgrounds and also females. Sadly I was neither.
 
freddielong said:
But if the reason that they are not being interviewed is purely racist how will interviewing them make any difference they still will not get the job
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what level of racism we are talking. There is quite a famous study in the US where they sent out CVs and job applications that were identical, but some had a white sounding name on them and some had a black sounding name. And they found the white sounding names were much more likely to get an interview.

It may be the case that once a person has a chance to show what they can do then it may go some way to dispelling any racist stereotypes the person interviewing may have. But I agree that if they are members of the KKK then they won't get the job. But as I have already said in other posts, this is about given the opportunity to show what they can do, not directly getting the job.
 
Interesting. Let's try another slant;

The English Premier League has no black managers and is therefore racist. Case closed.

However, of the 20 managers in the English Premier League, there are 8 Englishmen, 2 Scots, 2 Dutch and one each from Portugal, France, Chile, Northern Ireland, Wales, Spain, Argentina & Uruguay. Doesn't quite seem so racist now does it? Colourist possibly, as they are all white, but surely not racist?

Oh hang on, in the English Premier League, only 40% of the managers are English; clear case of racism against the under-represented indigenous population of England & needs to be addressed now, let's make a rule.

So that's that sorted. Racism would appear to depend entirely on what parameters you use and who's looking for it; discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top