In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
The problem is if racism isn't seen as a problem and no investigations are done into ethnic monitoring and access to the recruitment process then we can just stay as we are. The Rooney rule may change nothing until more black coaches come into the game and start working their way up from the lower levels.
The FA needs to do a proper investigation into racism within the game - the way Eniola Aluko was spoken to shows how attitudes are deeply ingrained within the coaching setup at the highest levels within the women's game.
Does the FA really want to eradicate racism or not?
There may be people on here who don't think there is a problem with racism in the game. The only body who could really prove this either way rather than relying on hearsay are the FA. I personally feel a detailed investigation of racism within the game is warranted - this needs to be done at all levels
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
Okay, I take issue with provision of actual examples. On the surface, it's absolutely a reasonable request.
However - it is my belief, and likely that of many others, that prospective BAME candidates are turned away from even getting to the point where they'd be "looked over" because of institutional racism that goes back to WAY before the final stages of an application process.
The assumption that people are discriminated against only right at the end of the line doesn't really make sense, IMO. It happens throughout the game.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
The problem is if racism isn't seen as a problem and no investigations are done into ethnic monitoring and access to the recruitment process then we can just stay as we are. The Rooney rule may change nothing until more black coaches come into the game and start working their way up from the lower levels.
The FA needs to do a proper investigation into racism within the game - the way Eniola Aluko was spoken to shows how attitudes are deeply ingrained within the coaching setup at the highest levels within the women's game.
Does the FA really want to eradicate racism or not?
There may be people on here who don't think there is a problem with racism in the game. The only body who could really prove this either way rather than relying on hearsay are the FA. I personally feel a detailed investigation of racism within the game is warranted - this needs to be done at all levels
I completely agree re the internal investigation of racsim within the game. It would be a huge positive and would, hopefully, change those ingrained attitudes you rightly mention.
However, I believe it to be a very dangerous path to walk down to say something happens when we have no evidence to back it up. An investigation may uncover a raft of truth to the claim, of which I'd be 100% behind the full force of exposure and necessary action against any deplorable individual found to be guilty of racism, but until such a time I think we need to take the stance of neutrality due to other factors/reasons as to why more BAME professionals aren't represented at certain levels within the game.
Lastly, apologies for the apparent 'tone' of my last post. Just read it back and it sounds a bit arsey. It wasn't intended that way.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
Okay, I take issue with provision of actual examples. On the surface, it's absolutely a reasonable request.
However - it is my belief, and likely that of many others, that prospective BAME candidates are turned away from even getting to the point where they'd be "looked over" because of institutional racism that goes back to WAY before the final stages of an application process.
The assumption that people are discriminated against only right at the end of the line doesn't really make sense, IMO. It happens throughout the game.
(Will come back to this later)
As I've alluded to above, an internal investigation should/would uncover this. I agree with you that there may be discrimination well before the final stages. That may explain why fewer BAME candidates make it into the upper echelons of the game. That doesn't prove that owners, CEO's, hirers or whoever are making appointments based on race. It highlights the lack of representation at the top that may stem from issues lower down the chain.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
The problem is if racism isn't seen as a problem and no investigations are done into ethnic monitoring and access to the recruitment process then we can just stay as we are. The Rooney rule may change nothing until more black coaches come into the game and start working their way up from the lower levels.
The FA needs to do a proper investigation into racism within the game - the way Eniola Aluko was spoken to shows how attitudes are deeply ingrained within the coaching setup at the highest levels within the women's game.
Does the FA really want to eradicate racism or not?
There may be people on here who don't think there is a problem with racism in the game. The only body who could really prove this either way rather than relying on hearsay are the FA. I personally feel a detailed investigation of racism within the game is warranted - this needs to be done at all levels
I completely agree re the internal investigation of racsim within the game. It would be a huge positive and would, hopefully, change those ingrained attitudes you rightly mention.
However, I believe it to be a very dangerous path to walk down to say something happens when we have no evidence to back it up. An investigation may uncover a raft of truth to the claim, of which I'd be 100% behind the full force of exposure and necessary action against any deplorable individual found to be guilty of racism, but until such a time I think we need to take the stance of neutrality due to other factors/reasons as to why more BAME professionals aren't represented at certain levels within the game.
Lastly, apologies for the apparent 'tone' of my last post. Just read it back and it sounds a bit arsey. It wasn't intended that way.
My concern with the FA initiative is that it may just be a token gesture towards the racism issue - it might help but there does need to be a proper investigation into racism in the game which involves all affected parties. I at least welcome this initiative as a starting point towards dealing with racism.
It's not an easy issue to solve and I'm unclear if the FA is willing to do a proper investigation and fund it. We're reliant on hearsay until proper reporting and monitoring is done which means concerns will continue to be dismissed.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
The problem is if racism isn't seen as a problem and no investigations are done into ethnic monitoring and access to the recruitment process then we can just stay as we are. The Rooney rule may change nothing until more black coaches come into the game and start working their way up from the lower levels.
The FA needs to do a proper investigation into racism within the game - the way Eniola Aluko was spoken to shows how attitudes are deeply ingrained within the coaching setup at the highest levels within the women's game.
Does the FA really want to eradicate racism or not?
There may be people on here who don't think there is a problem with racism in the game. The only body who could really prove this either way rather than relying on hearsay are the FA. I personally feel a detailed investigation of racism within the game is warranted - this needs to be done at all levels
I completely agree re the internal investigation of racsim within the game. It would be a huge positive and would, hopefully, change those ingrained attitudes you rightly mention.
However, I believe it to be a very dangerous path to walk down to say something happens when we have no evidence to back it up. An investigation may uncover a raft of truth to the claim, of which I'd be 100% behind the full force of exposure and necessary action against any deplorable individual found to be guilty of racism, but until such a time I think we need to take the stance of neutrality due to other factors/reasons as to why more BAME professionals aren't represented at certain levels within the game.
Lastly, apologies for the apparent 'tone' of my last post. Just read it back and it sounds a bit arsey. It wasn't intended that way.
My concern with the FA initiative is that it may just be a token gesture towards the racism issue - it might help but there does need to be a proper investigation into racism in the game which involves all affected parties. I at least welcome this initiative as a starting point towards dealing with racism.
It's not an easy issue to solve and I'm unclear if the FA is willing to do a proper investigation and fund it. We're reliant on hearsay until proper reporting and monitoring is done which means concerns will continue to be dismissed.
This is one area why I believe a hand picked team of ex and current professionals from all ethnicities should head up an investigation. The people at the top of the FA should not be involved in any part of it, other than being investigated themselves, so as to eliminate any claims or posibility of a whitewash. I'd see that as showing that its not a token gesture.
Nobody would admit to binning an application based on it having an apparently 'foreign' name. I can't prove it has ever happened in fields of employment but on the balance of probability I have the impression that it has taken place. I also think the cost and disruption of maternity cover can lead to applications with seemingly female names has led to other applications being binned. In this Rooney thing I don't recall anybody arguing anything other than the job goes to the best candidate. However having frequently interviewed people for jobs, you commonly get cases of four excellent people but only one job available. This is slightly different territory which asks the question about a group one of whom might be a woman, one ethnic minority person, one a gay person, one obviously indigenous for generations. All of a very similar age and ability. Should one operate positive discrimination for the 'underrepresented' in such a situation?
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
What drew you to that conclusion from the request to provide actual examples to back up your claim? Also, how does that equate to BR7 thinking that racism isnt an issue?
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
Okay, I take issue with provision of actual examples. On the surface, it's absolutely a reasonable request.
However - it is my belief, and likely that of many others, that prospective BAME candidates are turned away from even getting to the point where they'd be "looked over" because of institutional racism that goes back to WAY before the final stages of an application process.
The assumption that people are discriminated against only right at the end of the line doesn't really make sense, IMO. It happens throughout the game.
(Will come back to this later)
As I've alluded to above, an internal investigation should/would uncover this. I agree with you that there may be discrimination well before the final stages. That may explain why fewer BAME candidates make it into the upper echelons of the game. That doesn't prove that owners, CEO's, hirers or whoever are making appointments based on race. It highlights the lack of representation at the top that may stem from issues lower down the chain.
I 100% agree with this. In the NFL there was a study documenting a clear pattern of discrimination taking place at the highest level that as far as I can see cannot be said for English football. Discrimination is likely taking place somewhere in the system but the Rooney rule will be ineffective for obvious reasons at addressing the core issue you have highlighted.
The fact that racism (and other forms of prejudice) exists in society is pretty much irrefutable. Ergo, it exists in football.
Any action to undermine prejudice in any form must be positive and having a ‘qualified’ BAME candidate on a shortlist is positive action - perfectly lawful.
Positive discrimination, and in this case it would manifest itself as for example appointing the best BAME candidate rather than the best candidate, is unlawful and contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Nobody is suggesting that so claims of positive discrimination in the use of the Rooney Rule are way off the mark.
The FA are not going to eradicate racism - it is endemic and generational change is required for that to happen. It’s perceptibly not as bad as it once was but is still there.
Nobody would admit to binning an application based on it having an apparently 'foreign' name. I can't prove it has ever happened in fields of employment but on the balance of probability I have the impression that it has taken place. I also think the cost and disruption of maternity cover can lead to applications with seemingly female names has led to other applications being binned. In this Rooney thing I don't recall anybody arguing anything other than the job goes to the best candidate. However having frequently interviewed people for jobs, you commonly get cases of four excellent people but only one job available. This is slightly different territory which asks the question about a group one of whom might be a woman, one ethnic minority person, one a gay person, one obviously indigenous for generations. All of a very similar age and ability. Should one operate positive discrimination for the 'underrepresented' in such a situation?
People often think they're being fair and objective but unless monitoring is done there's no way to check this. The FA is a national body and if concerns are regularly raised about racism in the game then there needs to be a proper investigation into it to see how true this is and what the consequences are.
I can remember going to football and hearing monkey chants and racist abuse on the terraces and questions being raised about whether black players are capable of playing in certain positions. The recent case with Eniola Aluko and the English women's team shows how casual racism still exists with some of the coaches.
If the FA didn't have a problem with racism it would be unique amongst public bodies- whether they have the will to address the issue is another matter.
The fact that racism (and other forms of prejudice) exists in society is pretty much irrefutable. Ergo, it exists in football.
Any action to undermine prejudice in any form must be positive and having a ‘qualified’ BAME candidate on a shortlist is positive action - perfectly lawful.
Positive discrimination, and in this case it would manifest itself as for example appointing the best BAME candidate rather than the best candidate, is unlawful and contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Nobody is suggesting that so claims of positive discrimination in the use of the Rooney Rule are way off the mark.
The FA are not going to eradicate racism - it is endemic and generational change is required for that to happen. It’s perceptibly not as bad as it once was but is still there.
I agree 100% but the Rooney Rule was brought in by the NFL to combat a specific problem that there seems to be little evidence of in English football.
Nobody would admit to binning an application based on it having an apparently 'foreign' name. I can't prove it has ever happened in fields of employment but on the balance of probability I have the impression that it has taken place. I also think the cost and disruption of maternity cover can lead to applications with seemingly female names has led to other applications being binned. In this Rooney thing I don't recall anybody arguing anything other than the job goes to the best candidate. However having frequently interviewed people for jobs, you commonly get cases of four excellent people but only one job available. This is slightly different territory which asks the question about a group one of whom might be a woman, one ethnic minority person, one a gay person, one obviously indigenous for generations. All of a very similar age and ability. Should one operate positive discrimination for the 'underrepresented' in such a situation?
This all comes down to unconscious bias, and it can be mitigated... name blinding CVs, and having diverse interview panels (male, female, different levels within the organisation, mix of races) for example. You will often get a mix of candidates with different advantages and disadvantages (I do a fair bit of recruitment, and can confirm this at least anecdotally), but if the same person, or type of person is making all the calls, then what they consider the best candidate will by roughly the same each time (in terms of race, gender, age as well as other reasons). A mix of interviewers with equal weight of opinion and least makes the playing field fairer.
The fact that racism (and other forms of prejudice) exists in society is pretty much irrefutable. Ergo, it exists in football.
Any action to undermine prejudice in any form must be positive and having a ‘qualified’ BAME candidate on a shortlist is positive action - perfectly lawful.
Positive discrimination, and in this case it would manifest itself as for example appointing the best BAME candidate rather than the best candidate, is unlawful and contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Nobody is suggesting that so claims of positive discrimination in the use of the Rooney Rule are way off the mark.
The FA are not going to eradicate racism - it is endemic and generational change is required for that to happen. It’s perceptibly not as bad as it once was but is still there.
I agree 100% but the Rooney Rule was brought in by the NFL to combat a specific problem that there seems to be little evidence of in English football.
Fine, then don’t call it the Rooney Rule - call it a Job Interview Guarantee Scheme (already in existence in industry for very many under represented groups), and couple it with comprehensive training in recruitment and selection, training on conscious and unconscious bias, blind sifting (I accept this is difficult in football management) and a host of other initiatives. The Premier League Equality Standard already covers these points.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
I'd have to ask the FA and individual clubs for all the ethnic monitoring they've done when it comes to interviewing candidates for managerial appointments.
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
If any changes open up access and make it fairer then what's your problem? Providing the best candidate gets the job then what's the issue? If the best candidate doesn't get the job becausr of their skin colour or ethnic background then is that something to be celebrated?
I personally don’t see the need for an interview if you’ve no chance of getting it.
So at the end of the day there is no hard proof that racism is apparent when appointing the manager, going off assumptions doesnt stick.
I believe there’s racism problems yes but not in this instance.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
I think this is one of those instances where you're supposed to just accept the statement and not ask questions.
Historical racism in the game automatically means that BAME candidates are ignored, as opposed to not being qualified or having the required experience that the hiring club highlight as being a prerequisite of any applicant that is to be successful, in favour of a white man.
Yeah I hear you, as soon as you “yes but” on such subjects you feel like you’ve just seik-hauled.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
I'd have to ask the FA and individual clubs for all the ethnic monitoring they've done when it comes to interviewing candidates for managerial appointments.
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
If any changes open up access and make it fairer then what's your problem? Providing the best candidate gets the job then what's the issue? If the best candidate doesn't get the job becausr of their skin colour or ethnic background then is that something to be celebrated?
I personally don’t see the need for an interview if you’ve no chance of getting it.
So at the end of the day there is no hard proof that racism is apparent when appointing the manager, going off assumptions doesnt stick.
I believe there’s racism problems yes but not in this instance.
Who says they’ve no chance of getting it. As only qualified people need to be interviewed, maybe they will excel once given the opportunity. And even if they don’t, given that football is a relatively small business circle, a good candidate may get recommended to other people based on that.
It about opening the door. Nobody is forcing anyone to hire the candidates, just give them a chance. Even going through the interview process can be good for the candidate if they haven’t had that experience before(at this level).
The only problem is that it should be improved to cover all coaching positions, because if you can’t get on the bottom of the ladder, you’ll never get to the top.
That’s the current criticism of the NFL rule. Becuase it’s only qualified candidates for top jobs, mjnorities can be filtered out further down the process.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
I'd have to ask the FA and individual clubs for all the ethnic monitoring they've done when it comes to interviewing candidates for managerial appointments.
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
If any changes open up access and make it fairer then what's your problem? Providing the best candidate gets the job then what's the issue? If the best candidate doesn't get the job becausr of their skin colour or ethnic background then is that something to be celebrated?
I personally don’t see the need for an interview if you’ve no chance of getting it.
So at the end of the day there is no hard proof that racism is apparent when appointing the manager, going off assumptions doesnt stick.
I believe there’s racism problems yes but not in this instance.
Who says they’ve no chance of getting it. As only qualified people need to be interviewed, maybe they will excel once given the opportunity. And even if they don’t, given that football is a relatively small business circle, a good candidate may get recommended to other people based on that.
It about opening the door. Nobody is forcing anyone to hire the candidates, just give them a chance. Even going through the interview process can be good for the candidate if they haven’t had that experience before(at this level).
The only problem is that it should be improved to cover all coaching positions, because if you can’t get on the bottom of the ladder, you’ll never get to the top.
That’s the current criticism of the NFL rule. Becuase it’s only qualified candidates for top jobs, mjnorities can be filtered out further down the process.
This then comes back to the situation where if only 10 of 100 applicants are chosen to interview, and one of them has to be non-white (lets say he has the least qualifications), is that then preventing a white person potentially getting the role by missing out on interview?
Seems extremely harsh on someone that has taken time to get more qualifications and then doesn't get the opportunity to interview just because a box needs ticking.
In some instance it’ll be the most pointless exercise and a waste of time and possibly embarrassing for the BAME person, like they’re the just the “token” interview during the process.
At least they'll get to the interview. I'm sure you can understand that qualified BAME candidates are frequently ignored in a lot of cases due to ongoing prejudice - racial bias hasn't gone away.
Trying to do something about prejudice isn't a pointless exercise unless nobody wants change.
Football has had a history of racism - numerous examples can be given - and it would be foolish to pretend this has all disappeared.
Ultimately you want the best candidate for the job and people from ALL backgrounds to be given equal access.
Please show me a few of the numerous examples in which a capable BAME person has been ignored for a white person in a managerial appointment in football and I may agree with you?
I'd have to ask the FA and individual clubs for all the ethnic monitoring they've done when it comes to interviewing candidates for managerial appointments.
You don't seem to think there's a problem with racism in football so fair enough. The FA has taken the same attitude up to now but at least there seems now to be recognition that change is needed.
If any changes open up access and make it fairer then what's your problem? Providing the best candidate gets the job then what's the issue? If the best candidate doesn't get the job becausr of their skin colour or ethnic background then is that something to be celebrated?
I personally don’t see the need for an interview if you’ve no chance of getting it.
So at the end of the day there is no hard proof that racism is apparent when appointing the manager, going off assumptions doesnt stick.
I believe there’s racism problems yes but not in this instance.
Who says they’ve no chance of getting it. As only qualified people need to be interviewed, maybe they will excel once given the opportunity. And even if they don’t, given that football is a relatively small business circle, a good candidate may get recommended to other people based on that.
It about opening the door. Nobody is forcing anyone to hire the candidates, just give them a chance. Even going through the interview process can be good for the candidate if they haven’t had that experience before(at this level).
The only problem is that it should be improved to cover all coaching positions, because if you can’t get on the bottom of the ladder, you’ll never get to the top.
That’s the current criticism of the NFL rule. Becuase it’s only qualified candidates for top jobs, mjnorities can be filtered out further down the process.
This then comes back to the situation where if only 10 of 100 applicants are chosen to interview, and one of them has to be non-white (lets say he has the least qualifications), is that then preventing a white person potentially getting the role by missing out on interview?
That's not how recruitment works. You don't decide before looking through the applications on a set number you're going to interview and then have to stick to it no matter how good or bad the applicants are.
What is this obsession with creating crazy unrealistic situations to somehow make it so the Rooney rule somehow disadvantages white candidates?
Do you really think there are clubs out there who have meetings where they say "We've got 100 applicants so we're going to interview 10 and discard the rest, even if there are 20 applicants we really want to talk to, or only 2 that are worth actually interviewing. Our set in stone HR rules say we have to interview exactly 10 people".
There is this really bizarre form of ingrained racism where middle-aged white people (and I say that as a 40-something white guy) seem compelled to look at any law or rule that may benefit someone of non-white heritage and then try and find a way it could potentially disadvantage them in some way, no matter how ridiculous, unlikely or nonsensical the circumstances would need to be.
Yep, I was just reading an article on this. Zero sum logic - if someone is being helped in some way, then you are losing out. Even in cases like this, where I think we can all safely assume that we’re not personally going to be disadvantaged by the FA making sure they interview at least one qualified minority candidate.
Even if you are losing out, it is losing an advantage you don't deserve and an advantage not of your making, such as your gender or race. I'd sooner get a job on my own merits.
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.
Ok. I spent 30 years of my working life as a firefighter in the London fire brigade. When I joined the brigade in the early 80s it was predominantly a white male job. Over the years many changes happened to bring the brigade to be more representative of the community that it served. I am proud to say that the brigade is now totally inclusive regardless of colour religion sex or anything else.
When I said in my earlier post that I find it sad that race is still an issue in 2018 and that it should not be an issue in this day and age I meant it . I am sorry if you interpreted it differently.
That sounds like fantastic, hard work on many levels, and I apologize for my misreading.
Even if you are losing out, it is losing an advantage you don't deserve and an advantage not of your making, such as your gender or race. I'd sooner get a job on my own merits.
As would the BAME person picked as nothing more than a token following the new rule.
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.
Ok. I spent 30 years of my working life as a firefighter in the London fire brigade. When I joined the brigade in the early 80s it was predominantly a white male job. Over the years many changes happened to bring the brigade to be more representative of the community that it served. I am proud to say that the brigade is now totally inclusive regardless of colour religion sex or anything else.
When I said in my earlier post that I find it sad that race is still an issue in 2018 and that it should not be an issue in this day and age I meant it . I am sorry if you interpreted it differently.
That sounds like fantastic, hard work on many levels, and I apologize for my misreading.
No problem mate. Glad we are on friendly terms again.
Even if you are losing out, it is losing an advantage you don't deserve and an advantage not of your making, such as your gender or race. I'd sooner get a job on my own merits.
As would the BAME person picked as nothing more than a token following the new rule.
The were going to be given a job interview, not a job. And they would still need to meet the same criteria as the other interviewees.
If Chris Hughton falls off a cliff tomorrow who is the BAME person in the running for the england job?
I mean unless I’ve forgotten someone, you honesty don’t think there’s anything farcical about seeing the candidates for the england job as:
Dyche Howe Wenger John Barnes
Just so everyone goes aahh that’s better. (PS if the candidates further down the line are all BAME one day, great!)
You seem obsessed with the notion that if the England job cane up tomorrow, and one of your named candidates wanted to be considered, the FA would do it. That’s not what they said.
The candidate would need to be qualified, and as long as they are clear on what qualifications are needed, there may be no candidate for this job.
But the rule is there for all roles. So maybe, if Jason Euell wanted to put his name forward for U21 coach, he’d get an interview.
This narrow view of applying this just to the England managers job is misrepresenting what they are trying to do.
Interesting snippet from an unrelated NFL article as to why something like the Rooney Rule works in the States.
'The old-boy network still holds sway among head coaches, but there's a level of ownership involvement, media attention and fan expectation which forces teams to work harder in selecting head coaches. For every Raiders franchise busting its budget for a new sovereign, there are many more teams like the Giants performing exhaustive, well-publicized due diligence.. '
In other news, New York Giants could be about to hire Mike Wilks, the Carolina Panthers defensive coordinator as head coach, making him the 9th black head coach out of 32 in the league. There was just one in 2002.
Comments
You can't say that if you don't believe something that that automatically means you don't agree with something else.
You made a claim and so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
I'd like to believe that everyone knows of the history of racism within football, but to say someone doesn't think there's a problem when all they've asked for is evidence of your 'ignoring' claim, is ludicrous.
The FA needs to do a proper investigation into racism within the game - the way Eniola Aluko was spoken to shows how attitudes are deeply ingrained within the coaching setup at the highest levels within the women's game.
Does the FA really want to eradicate racism or not?
There may be people on here who don't think there is a problem with racism in the game. The only body who could really prove this either way rather than relying on hearsay are the FA. I personally feel a detailed investigation of racism within the game is warranted - this needs to be done at all levels
However - it is my belief, and likely that of many others, that prospective BAME candidates are turned away from even getting to the point where they'd be "looked over" because of institutional racism that goes back to WAY before the final stages of an application process.
The assumption that people are discriminated against only right at the end of the line doesn't really make sense, IMO. It happens throughout the game.
(Will come back to this later)
However, I believe it to be a very dangerous path to walk down to say something happens when we have no evidence to back it up. An investigation may uncover a raft of truth to the claim, of which I'd be 100% behind the full force of exposure and necessary action against any deplorable individual found to be guilty of racism, but until such a time I think we need to take the stance of neutrality due to other factors/reasons as to why more BAME professionals aren't represented at certain levels within the game.
Lastly, apologies for the apparent 'tone' of my last post. Just read it back and it sounds a bit arsey. It wasn't intended that way.
It's not an easy issue to solve and I'm unclear if the FA is willing to do a proper investigation and fund it. We're reliant on hearsay until proper reporting and monitoring is done which means concerns will continue to be dismissed.
Let's hope something happens.
In this Rooney thing I don't recall anybody arguing anything other than the job goes to the best candidate. However having frequently interviewed people for jobs, you commonly get cases of four excellent people but only one job available. This is slightly different territory which asks the question about a group one of whom might be a woman, one ethnic minority person, one a gay person, one obviously indigenous for generations. All of a very similar age and ability.
Should one operate positive discrimination for the 'underrepresented' in such a situation?
Any action to undermine prejudice in any form must be positive and having a ‘qualified’ BAME candidate on a shortlist is positive action - perfectly lawful.
Positive discrimination, and in this case it would manifest itself as for example appointing the best BAME candidate rather than the best candidate, is unlawful and contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Nobody is suggesting that so claims of positive discrimination in the use of the Rooney Rule are way off the mark.
The FA are not going to eradicate racism - it is endemic and generational change is required for that to happen. It’s perceptibly not as bad as it once was but is still there.
I can remember going to football and hearing monkey chants and racist abuse on the terraces and questions being raised about whether black players are capable of playing in certain positions. The recent case with Eniola Aluko and the English women's team shows how casual racism still exists with some of the coaches.
If the FA didn't have a problem with racism it would be unique amongst public bodies- whether they have the will to address the issue is another matter.
So at the end of the day there is no hard proof that racism is apparent when appointing the manager, going off assumptions doesnt stick.
I believe there’s racism problems yes but not in this instance.
It about opening the door. Nobody is forcing anyone to hire the candidates, just give them a chance. Even going through the interview process can be good for the candidate if they haven’t had that experience before(at this level).
The only problem is that it should be improved to cover all coaching positions, because if you can’t get on the bottom of the ladder, you’ll never get to the top.
That’s the current criticism of the NFL rule. Becuase it’s only qualified candidates for top jobs, mjnorities can be filtered out further down the process.
Seems extremely harsh on someone that has taken time to get more qualifications and then doesn't get the opportunity to interview just because a box needs ticking.
What is this obsession with creating crazy unrealistic situations to somehow make it so the Rooney rule somehow disadvantages white candidates?
Do you really think there are clubs out there who have meetings where they say "We've got 100 applicants so we're going to interview 10 and discard the rest, even if there are 20 applicants we really want to talk to, or only 2 that are worth actually interviewing. Our set in stone HR rules say we have to interview exactly 10 people".
There is this really bizarre form of ingrained racism where middle-aged white people (and I say that as a 40-something white guy) seem compelled to look at any law or rule that may benefit someone of non-white heritage and then try and find a way it could potentially disadvantage them in some way, no matter how ridiculous, unlikely or nonsensical the circumstances would need to be.
Glad we are on friendly terms again.
I mean unless I’ve forgotten someone, you honesty don’t think there’s anything farcical about seeing the candidates for the england job as:
Dyche
Howe
Wenger
John Barnes
Just so everyone goes aahh that’s better. (PS if the candidates further down the line are all BAME one day, great!)
The candidate would need to be qualified, and as long as they are clear on what qualifications are needed, there may be no candidate for this job.
But the rule is there for all roles. So maybe, if Jason Euell wanted to put his name forward for U21 coach, he’d get an interview.
This narrow view of applying this just to the England managers job is misrepresenting what they are trying to do.
'The old-boy network still holds sway among head coaches, but there's a level of ownership involvement, media attention and fan expectation which forces teams to work harder in selecting head coaches. For every Raiders franchise busting its budget for a new sovereign, there are many more teams like the Giants performing exhaustive, well-publicized due diligence.. '
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2753727-nfl-investigating-raiders-possible-rooney-rule-violation-after-jon-gruden-hire?share=other
In other news, New York Giants could be about to hire Mike Wilks, the Carolina Panthers defensive coordinator as head coach, making him the 9th black head coach out of 32 in the league. There was just one in 2002.