https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/44058915 What are peoples view on this? Not just the ECB but in general. Personally I cannot see how people from BAME backgrounds are supportive of this but in general they do appear to. Imagine if you was from a BAME background and you was sat with all the other interviewees in a waiting room, you and 6 other people all white. Surely you must feel that the only reason you have been given an interview is so they comply with the Rooney Rule? Realise this subject is slightly controversial but lets try and keep the discussion sensible! (and within forum rules)
That's exactly the reason for the rule. Without that, the chances for a BAME candidate to be included would be very low, despite their qualifications/experience. I think they'd much rather be included due to the new rule and actually have a chance to interview for the role than not being invited in the first place.
It's a shame we need a Rooney rule but when we've got half-bakes like these coming out of uni, many of whom will end up in roles with influence, I think we need one or at least something like it. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/durham-students-caught-up-in-racism-row-after-karaoke-0dvt3qh8j http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-43966504
So in business is this also the case? Or is it only sport that has a problem? The current argument is (correct or not) that they are not getting the job because of their colour/ethnic background, surely the Rooney Rule creates the same argument...they are only getting an interview because of their colour/ethnic background. I am not sure that stats of how it has effected numbers in American Football etc.
That's a nationwide cultural issue. For what it's worth I think we're better than most countries, but those who still say this stuff or hold these views would need to be educated otherwise. Forcing sports organisations to implement a racist recruitment policy really isn't the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I actually agree with you on all fronts but with different reasons! Not having BAME candidates for a position is just as likely to be racist as having token ones. It's too easy for deep-seated almost subliminal anti-MABE views to go unnoticed and just be accepted.
The problem isn't limited to sport. Racism is a problem in everyday life! I agree. The Rooney rule isn't perfect and as PLT said above, it will be seen as a box ticking exercise for some. It is a step in the right direction though as something has to change. It at least gives a chance for BAME candidates to get their foot in the door.
I think its a good thing. I once employed a Leeds fan. I didn't know until after I gave him the job, he turned out to be ok but he'd never have got an interview if I had known.
How about we also have to have a Female on the interview list as we don't have many of them in Sports Management/Coaching?? And least we wouldn't have to pay them as much (joke before anyone gets offended)
I'm not sure how the Rooney Rule is racist, necessarily. There are many areas where BAME people are under-represented, and the Rooney Rule seems to be the least onerous measure to prevent that (compared with, say, Labour's women-only shortlists and certain police forces not taking on non-ethnic recruits for certain periods, though I'm not sure how official that was ever made). Simply being interviewed doesn't mean that that person has to be given a job. It's simply giving a chance to a section of society who, the statistics show, aren't close to being proportionately represented within certain roles. It's not perfect - I've read a lot on it and am aware of its limitations - but I'd say its the least imperfect system and the one most likely to go some way to resolving this issue. And it is an issue. The number of BAME coaches in English professional football seems stuck at just over the 4% mark (against what has been a fairly consistent 25% mark for players, and 14% nationally). That's poor, and the Rooney Rule represents a way to improve upon that (as alluded to above, the use of the rule in the US has its problems, and the stats vary depending on where you look, but the generally recognised figure seems to be the employment ratio went from about 6% pre-Rooney to 22% post, and it's what Wikipedia goes with). I can only think that the Rooney Rule is racist if it denies someone an opportunity based on the colour of their skin. But the Rooney Rule in how I understand it being proposed doesn't necessarily do that. You can, and probably will, interview a BAME candidate in addition to who you may have interviewed anyway. Unless there's something about its proposed implementations in the UK that I've missed.
I assume a BAME person would have to have qualifications to get an interview under the rule? If you advertised a job as coach and the only BAME person to apply worked as an insurance salesman for instance, you wouldn't have to waste to everyones time interviewing them?
The reason I say it's racist is that it forces organisations to make recruitment decisions based on race and skin colour. Yes it's 'only' the interview stage and not an appointment, but it still seems backwards to me, and in some cases it will certainly cause someone to be excluded based on their race or skin colour. For example if a club wants a shortlist of 5 to interview and has 6 good candidates, one of which qualifies as 'BAME' but who they also feel is the least qualified candidate of the 6, then one of the other 5 who would have got an interview without the rule will not get one simply because their skin is the wrong colour. That's not right to me. The whole 'not enough black coaches' thing for me isn't a million miles away from "too many Asian doctors". I don't think that 'positive discrimination' as it's sometimes called, is ever a good thing. Really the goal should be for race and skin colour to not be a part of anyone's thought process, as is already the case for most people in this country I would say. I don't think this rule is a step in that direction.
The rule doesn't require you to interview someone who's not qualified for the role and if there were six equally qualified candidates, they be daft to kick one out just because they'd randomly decided they'd only interview five people. The simple fact is, that we have an enormous amount of black players and very few of them get an opportunity to manage and following the implementation of this rule in America, the amount of African-American coaches increased from 6% to 22%, so it's obviously worked. Two black managers are doing well in the Premier League at the moment and ultimately, it's a results based occupation and it's successful black managers that will drive change, but I see no real issue with giving it a go.
We may have an enormous amount of black players and much less black coaches, but given that they generally have to retire from playing before becoming a coach, that's an illogical comparison. We should be comparing it to the players of 10-15 years ago who are now retired, which I'm sure was significantly less black players. That's just one area in which I think the conclusion that black coaches aren't being given a chance could be a bit flawed. It always seems to be based on that one statistic, but I think we should be looking a bit deeper than that before assuming that football people in general are racist; subconscious or otherwise.
You think there's 15 years between a player stopping playing and starting coaching? It's closer to 15 months.
For a start, club's can shortlist however many candidates they want. It seems that a good number teams in the US simply interviewed an extra person, who was BAME. No one gets left out and a wrong is given a better chance of being righted. I'd say that the present situation could more realistically be accused of being 'racist'. It would be nice if it wasn't needed, but the stats show that it very probably is. I agree that positive discrimination is a bad thing (technically I don't really think that there can be such a thing as positive discrimination as you're still discriminating against somebody). And I agree that 'the goal should be for race and skin colour to not be a part of anyone's thought process'. But that goal has been in place for a long time now, and we're a long behind where we should be. Something needs to be done to address that, and the Rooney Rule seems like the least draconian way of doing it. Hopefully in 20 years' time it will not be needed. But in 2018 it is.
the 2011 census shows the uk population included 6.92% was of asian origin. for whatever reasons, these are practically invisible in football. the census showed 87.2% were of white origin, with around 5% black or mixed race. as percentages excluding the asian groups, it scales up to around 94.5% white and 5.5% black or mixed race. 4% is below this 5.5% and below the other 5%, but it isn't so far below that "poor" is an apt description. you have to cite some sort of context, and there's not been much of that on this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity the number of foreign managers in the premier league exceeds the number of british managers. there were 33 managers in the pl this season, 17 of them foreign. of the 16 british managers, four of them managed west brom. https://www.premierleague.com/managers
