Can't see it as a positive move when someone is being interviewed due to the colour of their skin as opposed to their track record in management/managing at the highest possible level.
Still, at least it will give plenty of interview practice to John Barnes and Paul Ince.
I see it as encouraging qualified people to go for jobs they might not otherwise have bothered going for.
If someone is not bothered to go for a job, do they really deserve the job?
Ok I will rephrase - I see it as encouraging qualified people to go for jobs they might have, in their heart, believed they would stand no chance of getting based on the lack of black people in such positions.
I, personally, wouldn't blame somebody for thinking it futile to apply.
In the NFL it’s generally been a good thing. BAME candidates who are qualified get interviews, which raises their profile, and leads to more interviews. It has its weaknesses as the Raiders showed, but nothing is perfect.
How this would work in football is interesting, because people don’t go through the same coaching hierarchy as the do in the NFL. No retiring player would ever be considered for a head coaching job. The best they can expect is a position coach, and then work their way up on merit. So it’s easy to spot if a BAME candidate is qualified - he’s probably a coordinator at his current team.
In football, it’s harder to say if someone is qualified becuase we see people who’ve never coached getting jobs.
On a separate topic, the FA charges for lower level qualifications. If they want to encourage participation there should be at least one or two level that are free for people sponsored by teams/organizations. I can understand fees as you progress, but at the lower levels they should be subsidizing this, even if they limit the number of positions available to a team. Additional or unaffiliated people could be asked to pay.
This doesn't fall under the guise of positive discrimination. Previously a position would, for example, interview 12 white candidates. Now they interview 12 white and at least 1 non-white candidate. The best candidate will still get the job. No one is being discriminated against.
This doesn't fall under the guise of positive discrimination. Previously a position would, for example, interview 12 white candidates. Now they interview 12 white and at least 1 non-white candidate. The best candidate will still get the job. No one is being discriminated against.
Unless I’m being thick here, If 100 people apply but they only interview 10, and the non-white has the least managerial experience and credentials for the position out of all 100, he will still get an interview. That’s positive discrimination.
But he wouldn't get the job. In all cases the most qualified candidate will get the job, regardless of skin colour. Maybe you could argue that is positive discrimination in getting an interview but can't really be argued in terms of appointing the manager. I'm not denying it isn't ideal but there was a clear need for it in the USA and in absence of a better method it is been praised as a simple and effective rule in most cases.
But he wouldn't get the job. In all cases the most qualified candidate will get the job, regardless of skin colour. Maybe you could argue that is positive discrimination in getting an interview but can't really be argued in terms of appointing the manager. I'm not denying it isn't ideal but there was a clear need for it in the USA and in absence of a better method it is been praised as a simple and effective rule in most cases.
The NFL and FA are two different kettle of fish altogether and I think there are many more smaller factors to why there aren’t more ethnic coaches or managers in our game. I don’t see it as being a bad thing, but it’s not the first thing the FA should be changing or implementing, which doesn’t surprise me.
But he wouldn't get the job. In all cases the most qualified candidate will get the job, regardless of skin colour. Maybe you could argue that is positive discrimination in getting an interview but can't really be argued in terms of appointing the manager. I'm not denying it isn't ideal but there was a clear need for it in the USA and in absence of a better method it is been praised as a simple and effective rule in most cases.
The NFL and FA are two different kettle of fish altogether and I think there are many more smaller factors to why there aren’t more ethnic coaches or managers in our game. I don’t see it as being a bad thing, but it’s not the first thing the FA should be changing or implementing, which doesn’t surprise me.
I don't know enough about the current FA situation to make an informed comment, I was only providing context on how the Rooney Rule has operated in its country of origin.
You're quite right though, it is pretty typical of the FA to blanket copy a rule from a completely different system as a quick fix as opposed to determining the root of lack of diversity in coaching and managing roles.
The problem I have is that it's not as if the PL is full of white English/British managers, 12/20 currently are "white foreign", and at all the top clubs.
With the foreign owners, is there discrimination going on against ALL British managers? After all when Roland was giving us network managers and coaches the discrimination wasn't against black managers, but against people outside his network, hence he got Fraeye and nearly got Nobby as well.
The problem I have is that it's not as if the PL is full of white English/British managers, 12/20 currently are "white foreign", and at all the top clubs.
Start of last season there were 12 British managers in the PL out of a total of 27 throughout the season. Given the revolving door to most managers offices in football these days I'm not sure you can read too much into it.
so if Wenger retires and tells Arsenal who they should appoint (Gilles Grimandi for arguments sake), they agree and Gilles wants the job, they all know each other, trust each other and the "interview" is little more than lunch and a bottle of red, do they have to go out and interview a black man anyway?
Don't know if this applies so well to football, since everyone knows who everyone is... It's a small world after all, but a lot of studies into graduate employment shows that unconscious bias effects who gets called up for interviews. People with "black" names are less likely to get called in for an interview than those with "white" names, even if the CV is identical. So, people name blind CVs. Might work with ex pros looking for first jobs? Maybe there is a perception that black players don't want to be managers and that counts against them?
so if Wenger retires and tells Arsenal who they should appoint (Gilles Grimandi for arguments sake), they agree and Gilles wants the job, they all know each other, trust each other and the "interview" is little more than lunch and a bottle of red, do they have to go out and interview a black man anyway?
Also, if Arsenal were to choose between Denis Bergkamp or Thierry Henry, how many people would immediately think that the choice here was between a white man and a black man, instead of a Dutch legend vs a French legend?
The Rooney rule just ensures BAME at least have more chance of getting to the interview stage if they have the relevant qualifications.
Makes me laugh the sudden concern over this and if it's fair given that the odds have been stacked so far the other way for decades.
We can all pretend the racism issue is history....
In terms of picking an England manager, it sounds nice, but at no time can you look at the choices of England manager and think that they deliberately ignored a BAME candidate, as sadly there weren't any.
Indeed, at the moment there's a pathetic choice of suitable English managers full stop, white or black.
The problem I have is that it's not as if the PL is full of white English/British managers, 12/20 currently are "white foreign", and at all the top clubs.
With the foreign owners, is there discrimination going on against ALL British managers? After all when Roland was giving us network managers and coaches the discrimination wasn't against black managers, but against people outside his network, hence he got Fraeye and nearly got Nobby as well.
Moyes and Allardyce and Pullis and Hughes and Pardew have continually gotten jobs over the last decade despite winning nothing between them. Tim Sherwood got a job. Two in fact. John Carver. Joe Kinnear. Stuart Pearce. Martin O'Neil is linked with the Stoke job. Roy Keane. Etc and so on.
It's not like we live in a wealth of meritocracy. It's an old boys club. Anything that breaks that up should be seen as a positive. And if it means managers are more representative of the sport as a whole, all the better.
Best person for the job should get the job regardless of colour.
Before anyone thinks I am missing the point. The best manager we have had since curbs was scp
My altime favourite Charlton players include David White Richard Rufus Chris Powell Keith Jones Darren Bent Etc etc etc.
The fact that some people still look at colour as an issue says a lot about us as society and in 2018 I find that sad
I would like a further explanation of this. Colour-blindness is often a luxury, and while I wholeheartedly agree with you that race should not be an issue in 2018, it clearly still is.
so if Wenger retires and tells Arsenal who they should appoint (Gilles Grimandi for arguments sake), they agree and Gilles wants the job, they all know each other, trust each other and the "interview" is little more than lunch and a bottle of red, do they have to go out and interview a black man anyway?
Yes - that's exactly what the Raiders have done effectively. They sacked Jack Del Rio and approached Gruden straight away and also offered him an ownership share. The BAME candidates they 'interviewed' included one of their own coaching staff as well as a college coach - although they've pulled a Katrien and not stated when the interviews took place.
As someone said earlier, in the NFL, coaches within a management structure tend to have higher profiles anyway as they're offensive coordinators, defense, positional coaches, special teams - and so results are easily judged.
It would be the equivalent, for argument's sake of saying, right, Jason Euell has done well at Charlton with the U23s (if that was taken more seriously), let's interview him for a club manager role. Or, Charlton have a defensive coach, he's done really well, let's interview for a full manager's job.
You know nothing about me and you obviously did not read my post as it was meant
You gave the footballing equivalent of "some of my best friends are black."
The fact that you flagged that (why? Because I called you "white man?" Challenged your pre-conceived notions?) )instead of saying "here is what I meant" is telling.
Leave off. Some of his best friends are Blackpudlian.
You know nothing about me and you obviously did not read my post as it was meant
You gave the footballing equivalent of "some of my best friends are black."
The fact that you flagged that (why? Because I called you "white man?" Challenged your pre-conceived notions?) )instead of saying "here is what I meant" is telling.
If you new me you would know how wrong you are in your assumption of who you think I am.
And yes I did find you calling me a white man in the way you said it offensive
You know nothing about me and you obviously did not read my post as it was meant
You gave the footballing equivalent of "some of my best friends are black."
The fact that you flagged that (why? Because I called you "white man?" Challenged your pre-conceived notions?) )instead of saying "here is what I meant" is telling.
If you new me you would know how wrong you are in your assumption of who you think I am.
And yes I did find you calling me a white man in the way you said it offensive
So I jumped to conclusions and I did that thing where I briefly forgot that there are human beings behind computer screens and I apologize for that. I'd truly like to have a better understanding of how you meant it, and even your background if you're willing to explain.
Comments
I, personally, wouldn't blame somebody for thinking it futile to apply.
How this would work in football is interesting, because people don’t go through the same coaching hierarchy as the do in the NFL. No retiring player would ever be considered for a head coaching job. The best they can expect is a position coach, and then work their way up on merit. So it’s easy to spot if a BAME candidate is qualified - he’s probably a coordinator at his current team.
In football, it’s harder to say if someone is qualified becuase we see people who’ve never coached getting jobs.
On a separate topic, the FA charges for lower level qualifications. If they want to encourage participation there should be at least one or two level that are free for people sponsored by teams/organizations. I can understand fees as you progress, but at the lower levels they should be subsidizing this, even if they limit the number of positions available to a team. Additional or unaffiliated people could be asked to pay.
You're quite right though, it is pretty typical of the FA to blanket copy a rule from a completely different system as a quick fix as opposed to determining the root of lack of diversity in coaching and managing roles.
With the foreign owners, is there discrimination going on against ALL British managers? After all when Roland was giving us network managers and coaches the discrimination wasn't against black managers, but against people outside his network, hence he got Fraeye and nearly got Nobby as well.
Makes me laugh the sudden concern over this and if it's fair given that the odds have been stacked so far the other way for decades.
We can all pretend the racism issue is history....
Indeed, at the moment there's a pathetic choice of suitable English managers full stop, white or black.
Before anyone thinks I am missing the point.
The best manager we have had since curbs was scp
My altime favourite Charlton players include
David White
Richard Rufus
Chris Powell
Keith Jones
Darren Bent
Etc etc etc.
The fact that some people still look at colour as an issue says a lot about us as society and in 2018 I find that sad
It's not like we live in a wealth of meritocracy. It's an old boys club. Anything that breaks that up should be seen as a positive. And if it means managers are more representative of the sport as a whole, all the better.
As someone said earlier, in the NFL, coaches within a management structure tend to have higher profiles anyway as they're offensive coordinators, defense, positional coaches, special teams - and so results are easily judged.
It would be the equivalent, for argument's sake of saying, right, Jason Euell has done well at Charlton with the U23s (if that was taken more seriously), let's interview him for a club manager role. Or, Charlton have a defensive coach, he's done really well, let's interview for a full manager's job.
Maybe Chris Hughton? Certainly more qualified than Southgate.
And yes I did find you calling me a white man in the way you said it offensive