Kick It Out

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
My take on this:

Whilst it looks quite straightforward on the surface, who we think is right or wrong depends on our own attitude to race and racism. Some think it is a load of nonsense and a lot of actions/speeches about nothing. We even some dinosaurs saying "why don't we go back to the period when men were men and could take this kind of nonsense without whinging and moaning back to the authorities?"

Recent events:

Ferguson was wrong in my opinion to take it for granted that Ferdinand was going to wear that shirt. And Ferdinand and any other player (black or white) have the right not to wear that T-Shirt.

Terry was treated too leniently by the FA. Was it because he was found not guilty by a Court? There is no way that Suarez should have been treated more sverely than Terry. Can anyone believe that Suarez's words were more offensive than Terry's?

I can understand why the Ferdinands thought that Terry had preferential treatment. The FA purports to take racism seriously. It quite rightly complains when the serbians racailly abuse one of our black players. But when it comes to the crunch, they just cannot take that difficult step.

As for the creation of a black players union, I can't see a problem. This is not racist. We have a black playyers union in the US. We have a black policemen association in UK. If a smaller group within a large group or union feels it is disadvantaged and not being taken seriously by a larger group, they will feel the need to form their own association to protect their interests.

We need to keep pushing the frontiers. 30 years ago, we were exactly where the serbians, polish, and ukrainians are now. Many of us feel a sense of pride that we are much better than them and we have progressed so much. May be in 2042, fans would say the same: "Is it possible we were behaving like THAT in 2012?"
 
Why is Carlisle so 'desperate' to talk to someone found guilty of utilising a racially motivated comment to humiliate a black player?

PFA chairman Clarke Carlisle feels a breakaway union for black players would be divisive and he wants to hold talks with Rio Ferdinand and Jason Roberts to discuss their aims.
Carlisle
You must log in or register to see images
wants the key players in the potential breakaway to meet and talk about the issues that have caused the movement to gather momentum.
He revealed he has already spoken to Roberts
You must log in or register to see images
on a number of occasions but that did not stop him and Ferdinand
You must log in or register to see images
- among many players - refusing to wear a Kick It Out T-shirt before last weekend's Premier League games.
"We need to know exactly what it is they are wanting. Whether this is a movement that is in full flow and whether they think it is going to happen irrespectively, or whether it is something where they are trying to instigate change within the organisations that are currently in place."
Clarke CarlisleQuotes of the week
"I've had a number of conversations with Jason over the past few months. The most recent of them was on Sunday and they will continue," Carlisle said.
"Jason explained one or two things to me but I don't know what the full intentions or the requests are of this breakaway group.
"Until we get everyone in and fully ascertain what they want and the direction they want to go in I can't really comment much further.
"The threat is very real because the proposal is there and the discussions have been had so it's obviously something that has been mooted within the industry.
"We have been having meetings with Jason and we have desperately been trying to get Rio into the meetings and that will continue. We will have those discussions with them at the time.
"We need to know exactly what it is they are wanting. Whether this is a movement that is in full flow and whether they think it is going to happen irrespectively, or whether it is something where they are trying to instigate change within the organisations that are currently in place."

This kind of BS from Carlisle shows he has no morals on an issue he flatters to deceive.
 
I just feel like a "black players union" is positive segregation. Put it this way a "Jewish player union" or a "Ginger Hair Players union" (sorry for the silly example) would clearly raise a few eyebrows. I Just can't see the benefit of any segregation negatively or positively. It clearly highlights a difference between "black players" and any other race of player.

If everyone is to be treated equally, then logically no one should have any special union but one union which is run equally for everyone?
 
If there is a black players union then there should be a fat players union, a ginger players union, a adulterous union. I think this is all getting to far.

This idea of a black players union goes against the idea of unity in my opinion. They risk creating a break away rivalry.

A lot of great work has been done to improve the racism situation. We need more of the same, not a revolution.
 
Poolliver said:
I just feel like a "black players union" is positive segregation. Put it this way a "Jewish player union" or a "Ginger Hair Players union" (sorry for the silly example) would clearly raise a few eyebrows. I Just can't see the benefit of any segregation negatively or positively. It clearly highlights a difference between "black players" and any other race of player.

If everyone is to be treated equally, then logically no one should have any special union but one union which is run equally for everyone?
Click to expand...

In a socialist Utopia, then we would have 1 Players Union with dedicated Sections to look after the particular interests of distinct groups all of them controlled by the membership of the Union. However we are neither blessed with a socialist Utopia or the common sense to critically examen the arguments forwarded by different interest groups.

One of the arguments forwarded has more to do with Positive Discrimination than it does with football. In every organisation that I have ever come across where positive discrimination has been introduced, it has quickly degenerated into a parody of itself. It also appears to have fostered a siege mentality amongst the grouping 'blamed' for the need to introduced positive discrimintion. For goodness sake coud it not be that the numbers of black managers and coaches is merely a lagging indicator of the growing numbers of black players ie it will self-rectify over time.

However, it does worry me that we are now facing a situation wherein we are being forced to differentiate between players.
 
Truly amazing! the profession that gains most from divided interest groups seems to be at the origins of the idea: Lawyers. I wonder why....

Simple test applied: would our society have accepted John Terry coming out after all this debacle saying "I want to form a white players union because I think the PFA didn't represent me sufficiently in this issue"

If the answer is no to that question it has to be no to the black players union.

Think this through objectively. If it is called such; isn't it clearly stating that it believes this is a distinct group of people which should be treated differently than players who are not black. Sorry that is racist. You can add a tag like "positive discrimination" all you want but that's PC language for "it's ok when we do it" . Segregation is segregation no matter who it advantages and it belongs firmly to the past. Mandela would be so proud of Rio if this us true.

If it comes into existence & is allowed legitimacy by the FA it sets a very dangerous precedent. Take the examples of Ashley Cole & Glen Johnson. For their own reasons they stood by their team mates. Both were called "race traitors" or the old "choc ice" by some.

So if a black union is formed are all black players feeling pressured into joining because if they don't accusations of race traitor will start. Do they cease to be considered "black" ? If they don't join? If a black union requests certain action be taken by its members what happens to the black players who did not join when they don't take that action?

Don't be silly I hear you say, they are still black. Ok: but now they have an organisation claiming to represent black footballers that they actively didn't join. So does this union get a say in cases involving black players that don't agree with them or want to join them? If not then how is it the "black" footballers association? If so, why, by sheer definition the non union black players will have less of a "black voice"

As Dave says this approach never works. Take a look at the black police federation to see what difficulties would lie ahead.

I will repeat my opinion. Work within the Union that exists or if you want to form a different one fine, has happened in other trades, one that will he more forceful on the issue of racism but keep the "black" out of the title, its very presence goes against what you claim you wish to achieve.

You may just wake up and find the South American players union, the Asian players union. The (full in religion) union and all the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee as every decision (or indecision) ends up in court. Where'a the social integration there?
 
Foredeckdave said:
In a socialist Utopia, then we would have 1 Players Union with dedicated Sections to look after the particular interests of distinct groups all of them controlled by the membership of the Union. However we are neither blessed with a socialist Utopia or the common sense to critically examen the arguments forwarded by different interest groups.

One of the arguments forwarded has more to do with Positive Discrimination than it does with football. In every organisation that I have ever come across where positive discrimination has been introduced, it has quickly degenerated into a parody of itself. It also appears to have fostered a siege mentality amongst the grouping 'blamed' for the need to introduced positive discrimintion. For goodness sake coud it not be that the numbers of black managers and coaches is merely a lagging indicator of the growing numbers of black players ie it will self-rectify over time.

However, it does worry me that we are now facing a situation wherein we are being forced to differentiate between players.
Click to expand...

Don't go run away with yourselves.

A union or association Has never meant as much as people believe. What has the footballers union done for football? Gordon Taylor picks up a large salary: more than £1/2 million fir doing nothing. Same as this black players union. All it will do is speak on behalf of black players in case of unfair dismissal etc. I can understand why the likes of Carlisle and Taylor are worried. What proportion of premiership footballers are black? Quite high. Even if the black players don't form a separate association, they will have given Taylor notice...
 
No matter what way you colour it (excuse the pun!), having a union for only black players is wrong. Had it been white players who suggested it, everyone would be up in arms over it.

By forming the black player's union, they are seeking to differentiate themselves from the other races represented under the PFA, this can be construed as racism.
 
So who would a Black Player's Union represent? If it were anything like the existing Players Union then in reality it will only truly look after the interests of black players in the Premiership and Championship. Irrespective of the colour of their skin, you are actually talking about some of the most pampered individuals within our society.
 
carlthejackal said:
Don't go run away with yourselves.

A union or association Has never meant as much as people believe. What has the footballers union done for football? Gordon Taylor picks up a large salary: more than £1/2 million fir doing nothing. Same as this black players union. All it will do is speak on behalf of black players in case of unfair dismissal etc. I can understand why the likes of Carlisle and Taylor are worried. What proportion of premiership footballers are black? Quite high. Even if the black players don't form a separate association, they will have given Taylor notice...
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but unionism in the UK has both meant and achieved a lot since The Grand National Consolidated Union in 1834.
 
carlthejackal said:
All it will do is speak on behalf of black players in case of unfair dismissal etc.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that a 'black players union' would get involved in a future case like Suarez or Terry?, the very reason they are considering forming the union is because they want a say on the punishment in cases of alleged racial abuse.

I agree carl that even if the union thing fades away Taylor and Carlisle have been given notice.
 
A problem is that you can't be seen to argue against the formation of a black player's union, because everyone would judge you as a racist, even if the idea (as previously stated by you guys) of a black players union actually causes segregation in the game.
 
Kyle? said:
A problem is that you can't be seen to argue against the formation of a black player's union, because everyone would judge you as a racist, even if the idea (as previously stated by you guys) of a black players union actually causes segregation in the game.
Click to expand...

^
Sad but so very true
 
Kyle? said:
A problem is that you can't be seen to argue against the formation of a black player's union, because everyone would judge you as a racist, even if the idea (as previously stated by you guys) of a black players union actually causes segregation in the game.
Click to expand...

I'd rather be accused of racism by condemning all forms of racism than allow this egotistical folly which would play right into the BNP's hands.

Can you imagine that lot using a "black union" as yet another "example" of how the white man is being undermined in his own country? And the more segregated society becomes the more people will believe being told "they" have groups representing their interests, getting ahead in life?" Who represents you? When we try we're called racist. When they try its called justice."

See how easy it is? And I think they are thickest lot in politics but even they will be able to play the game if we start dividing society up along ethnic or special interest lines.

America was used as an example by someone earlier. Really? see how integrated a society they've become (no offence Bluff) "positive" discrimination just creates a litigious society. Everyone forms a group and demands their rights.

People forget that a truly successful society is about giving into it not demanding your piece. Our society has reached a level of maturity that the majority accept that everyone's inane right is to be treated fairly & equally. I'm all for people joining together with common purpose to create a louder voice to make sure this basic right is upheld in all areas of life.

But what's the common interest in this case? We're all black? As I stated earlier one black man (Johnston) viewed the events differently than another black man (Evra or Roberts) ditto Ferdinand or Cole.

Listening to the debate over the past few days various black footballers & ex footballers totally disagreeing over the formation of this union so I ask again WHAT common ground? The colour of their skin. 200 years of civil rights struggle and its amounted to a number of black men (Roberts et al) defining themselves by nothing but the colour of their skin?

MLK would be appalled.

Anger at the way the FA handled all this; fine, we all were over the last year regardless of colour. I've never seen such a poor attempt at being seen to please everybody & please nobody in my life but creating another body the FA will scurry to please as well will just make them worse.

So if this idea was thrown out to start debate & sharpen focus fine its achieved that and i think even in their inept way the FA will review their racism policy & procedures. Except you've got lawyers involved who smell money now & has Beens & Never was players seeing a nice little niche for themselves, now footballs nearly over. A spoilt brat will always seek attention regardless of the colour their skin and I think we're hearing a couple of voices desperate to remain in the limelight for all the wrong reasons.
 
"So who would a Black Player's Union represent? If it were anything like the existing Players Union then in reality it will only truly look after the interests of black players in the Premiership and Championship. Irrespective of the colour of their skin, you are actually talking about some of the most pampered individuals within our society."

Current & ex black players who feel they are not getting the same chances as others purely based on their skin colour. And I think they may have a point. How many Black managers are there from the PL to League 2? 1 or 2? It does seem a bit fishy when you consider how many black players there are in the game today.

That said, how do you decide whether someone is black or not? I don't think Ferdinand is that much darker than Suarez in all honesty! Will Suarez be allowed in!?
 
Lucaaas said:
How many Black managers are there from the PL to League 2? 1 or 2? It does seem a bit fishy when you consider how many black players there are in the game today.
Click to expand...

Could you really see a chairman saying to the board, no way are we having a black manager?

Now obviously it is much more subtle than that but it sums up what you are implying. How many managers in the prem are white ex players who walked straight into managing a top team? so why do people expect that black players should be doing it.

Not saying racism isn't a factor but before this can be used as an argument we need to see it backed up by some sort of study into number of black players with all necessary badges etc who are currently trying to get into management or working the lower leagues as assistants etc.

Without that it is just tabloid talk.
 
The lack of black managers has nothing to do with race, and more to do with them not doing their coaching badges. Obviously white players want to do their coaching badges more than black players do. It has nothing to do with race, only motivation.
 
Kyle? said:
The lack of black managers has nothing to do with race, and more to do with them not doing their coaching badges. Obviously white players want to do their coaching badges more than black players do. It has nothing to do with race, only motivation.
Click to expand...

<doh>

Do you all see what I mean? This is exactly the prejudice and discrimination( I won't use the r word) I was referring to. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that black players do not go on to do their coaching badges. In fact, the recent evidence is that the proportion of black ex-players with a badge who is in a coaching position is much much less than their white counterparts.

There is a problem in football. And to argue with these types of myths does no one any favours.

Cheers.
 
No Carl, you are seeing prejudice where you want to. He made the same generalised without evidence statement you did just from the other point of view.

The point was badly put in the post you quoted but I notice you ignored the post directly above that put the same point better.

We can not, MUST not allow people to just say there are no black managers because football is racist. Evidence is needed.

1) how many black players currently
Hold their licences (why stop there, Asian, Women, Gay: I assume they are all underrepresented in this area: I'd assume we'd want that addressed also?)

2) of those that hold badges how many have held manager posts

3) of those that held posts but no longer hold the post why?

Because funny enough, I'm fairly sure a black manager has the right to be **** & sacked just as much as a white manager. We need to see the actual evidence for institutional racism before we can see how to fix it.

Now this is just a guess but the real "racism" if you want to call it that(inaccurate & simplistic) on this idea is in the communities themselves. John Barnes and others have openly debated that being the athlete is too often a black male child's only goal and that it has to be changed. That culturally their heroes are athletes, not lawyers or managers etc, so maybe you need a group to go to schools & youth groups and encourage that to be the ultimate goal or a just as valuable alternative. Let me think what organisation does things like that: oh yes Kick it out!


As usual with knee jerk media fests, its encouraged many people with no Brains to make accusations & recommendations with no supporting evidence. The real inherent racism everyone is missing is media organisations like the bbc, taking the comments of every black man to talk loudly as a representative of the "group" as a whole (thinking there's a group based on skin colour in the first place is pretty racist too). They do it with Asian and religious groups as well. It's lazy journalism and unwittingly continues to encourage social divides.
 
carlthejackal said:
<doh>

Do you all see what I mean? This is exactly the prejudice and discrimination( I won't use the r word) I was referring to. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that black players do not go on to do their coaching badges. In fact, the recent evidence is that the proportion of black ex-players with a badge who is in a coaching position is much much less than their white counterparts.

There is a problem in football. And to argue with these types of myths does no one any favours.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many Black coaches have got their badges.

Unless we actually sit in on the interviews where there is at least 1 black candidate, we'll never know the reasons as to why they were not given the job. We can 'blame' it on racism but then there is a case that the candidate is simply not good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back