I may be a bit naïve to the situation but judging just purely from a general observation without any valid statistics, most managers these days both in the Prem and abroad had a playing career roughly from the 70s/80s/ early 90s. In those times, in England, the majority race in football was white, so as the years have gone by, isn't it only natural that the players from those days who now manage are of white origin? Over the past 15-20 years there's been a much more multi cultural influx to the Prem and so I'm sure that in X amount of years time, we'll be seeing a lot more black/ Asian managers.
That's a good point SD, the only one who springs to mind is Bale. I know I'm going to get grilled for this but I have the fear that black coaches would be biased towards black players. Lenny Henry said that there should be more black tv personalities. Obama has gone for ethnic minorities in Washington etc. I just feel black coaches would go for majority black players...sorry.
As well intentioned as these ideas are I don't think they are a good idea in the long run. I have fought racism all my life it's the one issue where I have always made a stand. Over the 5 decades or so that I have observed there has been a huge improvement in the situation but discrimination is always about in some form or another. What we are talking about is a level playing field and I doubt we will ever achieve that. Discrimination is not confined to one group it happens across all races and nationalities. Racism against Black people has been the major problem in the modern world, stemming of course from slavery and I am very pleased to see the improvements overall in this particular area of racism. On the other hand slavery has not been eradicated it has just changed it's appearance and targets. Let's also remember that black racism was not reduced and changed by laws it was changed by black people making a stand and fighting for their rights. The greatest cultural contribution from the USA has been IMO, Jazz and this is essentially a 20th century creation of mainly African Americans. In the creation of jazz black people were clearly demonstrating just how stupid and uncivilised the position of white rascists was and is. In a similar manner black sportsman have demonstrated the lie that racism is. It becomes difficult to maintain a rascist position when the team you are cheering includes some of your black sporting heroes. IMO we need to continue to support civilised behaviour and just not allow people to behave in a rascist manner without challenging them but other than that black people do not need any more help than people with red hair or big noses or the 'wrong' accent or any other difference. How many cockney accents do we hear in Westminster government for example. To suggest that one group or another needs special conditions just leads to further discrimination IMO.
please log in to view this image Yeah, look at all of those racial minorities and women... He's been specifically criticised for failing install diverse enough candidates. Why would black coaches go for black players any more than white coaches go for white players? With the current climate they had best pick the best players that they can, regardless of colour or creed, or they'll get the sack.
What was the problem with letting Jim Crow persist in the southern US? Most people wanted it. It was legal (debatably). Why would people feel that the central government had an obligation to step in and tell all sorts of individuals and organizations who to hire? Could it be that left to themselves, these people had demonstrated a pattern of discrimination as a group, and that the evil of writing laws and regulations to try to mitigate if not end the discrimination was less than the evil of letting it continue? Whether the lack of non-white football managers demonstrates a pattern of discrimination is debatable. As has been said, any "rising" group will tend to be less heavily represented in senior (manager) than junior (player) positions, as that’s the nature of a "rising" group. I would say that any difference between darker and lighter human beings other than differing concentrations of melanin in their skin are entirely trivial and do not involve either character or intelligence. The idea that someone might be less suited for any job due to their race would be laughable if it were not seriously believed.
In the case of the UK we are not talking about a land where Rascism had been enshrined in law as in South Africa, Australia and the USA well not since we had stopped exploiting Africans so that our elite could earn big fortunes anyway. Positive discrimination is different and well intentioned but it is still discrimination. I prefer laws like: It's wrong to kill, full stop. Rather than: It's wrong to kill unless ............................ Mind you we already have that: It's wrong to kill unless you are the UK government.
Racism was legally sanctioned in the UK. Now it's not. That's also true of the US. There appears to be very little support in the UK for what its supporters call affirmative action and its detractors call reverse or positive discrimination (based on my highly unscientific sampling). This was true in the US fifty or sixty years ago. Was the US wrong to adopt it (partly and it appears temporarily) full stop? Was it good for the US (due to more severe problems) then but not for the UK now? Or does greater experience over a longer period of time with proportionately more minorities slowly teach people that it is in some cases the lesser of two evils? I'm in the last group. Most of what has been good for most people in the US has come from or been in some way influenced by the federal government. Equal rights, collective bargaining, health and safety protection, environmental protection, the list goes on and on. The will of the majority is trumped by the rights of the minority. If this were not so, the majority would quickly arrange a despotic state, as they often have. If any group is denied its equal rights, a central authority ought to step in, as mistake-prone as it may be, to at least try to uphold justice. Whether that's the case as to PL managers I don't know.
RWAEB I think the case you make is right when you are trying to reform a society like the USA was right up until recently. As in South Africa without legislation it would not change I accept that. In Britain we never had large numbers of Black people in our society until the 1950's and whilst we had racism it was not overtly part of our law. We never had colour bars (In law) only those brought about by individuals. We did have institutionalised racism and probably still do and that has to be outlawed but I think that is different to passing laws for individual behaviour. Even as I write this I see the holes in my own argument. I thought my first post on the subject summed up my position. Now you have messed that up RWAEB.
It's a messy argument either side you take, I think, and it may be best to recognize that. If you're pro-affirmative action, what do you say to the person who would have gotten the job if his skin was darker? Your individual pain is not too high a price for me to pay to improve my society in the long run? It's good to be concerned with the people your chosen policies would sacrifice. I've seen how poorly affirmative action has worked, especially insofar as it tends to help those who don't need helping. Yet even so, on balance, it was probably better that the US had it, to some extent and temporarily. The non-white middle class in the US has grown tremendously, and few, I think, question that affirmative action had an important role to play. But, again, is that lesson exportable? We, unlike you, held millions in chains for centuries, set them free at the absolute lowest rung in society, generally broke, illiterate, and unskilled, with a long heritage of brutalization and broken family ties, then pushed them down for another century with institutionalized racism. Starting in the UK as a poor immigrant from the Caribbean is no doubt very difficult, but it's a far cry from that.
PNP, my gut instinct told me that Adebayor wouldn't get on with AVB and so it was. My gut instinct tells me that black coaches would go for more black players than white, a power shift. White coaches go for mixed races as we have seen in all teams and whether they feel under pressure or not so as not to be seen as racist I don't know. It's just a gut instinct.
AVB had no issue with Rose, Kaboul, Walker, Naughton, Lennon, Dembele, Paulinho. Not sure race was the problem between Ade and AVB. The issue seems to be AVB not wanting Ade, so that is the opposite of your point. Ade was very polite about AVB. Your views are, quite literally, prejudiced in the sense that you hold them without any evidence (so called gut instinct). Until there is evidence of race causing an issue, most of us would assume there would be none.
No more posts like this TMT. I leave it here so that people can see where you are coming from but any more will be deleted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29478599 Mourinho's view. For what it's worth, I agree. Changes are needed at an earlier stage in the process to encourage black players to believe they have a chance in coaching/management ,so that more of them come through the ranks and apply for vacant positions. Tokenism is no good. The quota systems for SA sports teams was a sham. It also proved to be unnecessary in the long run because when black players could see that they would be selected, if good enough, they came through and got selected. The only reservation in the SA case is how many black players get the chance to play SA major sports apart from football? Opportunities in cricket and RU are more limited. That needs to change, but by providing facilities and opportunities to play, not by arbitrarily selecting players irrespective of merit. Ditto the F.A re providing encouragement, support and opportunities to get coaching badges etc for prospective black managerial candidates.
SD, my point was not about race, it was not about the colour of Ade's skin, it was about gut instinct. Just as my gut instinct told me about Balotelli and Suarez scoring against England and Ba who played in England scoring against Spurs, they were gut instincts and NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE OR COLOUR. I hope that has cleared that up. Just to add a bit more, I posted about Ade because I didn't think that their CHARACTERS would be compatible not colours. I know AVB had no issue with colour and neither do I. That's where I'm coming from. Spurf, get rid of this 45 will you, it means nothing to anybody but you.
Those who go to matches with bananas and throw them onto the pitch, THEY ARE RACISTS. Those who make monkey noises at players,THEY ARE RACISTS. Those who took the banner to the Belgrade match,THEY ARE RACISTS. The man who was happy that that young Bolton player died on the pitch, HE IS A RACIST. I NEVER DID ANY OF THAT AT WHITE HART LANE OR ANYWHERE. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST BLACK PLAYERS OR COACHES. I USED TO GET GARTH CROOKS TO SIGN MY PROGRAMME. I do not see how my remark that more black coaches would favour players of their own colour skin over those of other colour skins makes me a racist. I posted an observation of what I think the behaviour would be. Now Spurf, if you are trying to single me out and construe what I post as racism I'll meet you on the private message board.
You're not supporting your claim with any evidence though, TMT. Your suggestion that white coaches pick players from all races to avoid being accused of racism suggests that some of those players aren't being selected on merit. Your claim that black coaches would be biased towards black players doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own suspicions, either.
