The Rooney-Rule

No... I'm not saying you bald bastards should be getting skin grafts from a donkey's backside, or that us men should consider anything under-65 and willing to do anything for a pound (cough cough) as a viable sexual partner, I'm talking about the current hot-topic, whether the FA should enforce a rule currently prevalent in American sports (particularly the NFL), whereby an ethnic person (usually black, let's not beat around the bush) meeting the minimum criteria, is given a guaranteed interview.

Do you think it's a good idea?

While I think diversity is a part of this game and we should make every effort to encourage continued progress in this area, I am personally against this rule. Technically, there's no harm done in giving such a candidate an interview, the chairmen does not have to hire them. However, as I see it, it's fundamentally racist.

If you have been searching for a job in the last five years, you will have come up against the beloved last page in an online application process, the diversity agenda. This is where you sign away your chances of an interview by ticking the "white-heterosexual-non-religion-not-disabled" boxes. If you are from an ethnic minority, or of a same-sex persuasion, or a minority religious background, or are disabled, you get a guaranteed interview. How is that progression? Making up for past prejudice by screwing over a generation of more qualified candidates in this generation hardly seems in the interest of "fairness". In fact, fulfilling a governmentally mandated quota is downright racist.

This is the issue I have with the Rooney-Rule here. While America has had a very recent history of disparity between the effective education of white and black children, ours has been much better. Though the diversity of playing staff is not reflected in the coaching in our country as yet, I feel that the best way to combat this is to increase coaching facilities (desperately needed in this country, and in the dark ages compared with most footballing powerhouses) and opportunities for people (not just ex-footballers) to become qualified. Personally, if I were the FA president, I'd have apprenticeship deals in place with the lower league clubs, whereby they would get financial packages for offering new managers coming through the coaching system an opportunity. That way managers, of whatever race, could gain practical experience and the best would rise through the ranks.

While I applaud the thought, a Rooney-Rule really isn't going to be beneficial to anybody. It will most likely cost a more qualified manager an opportunity to interview, and the black/minority candidate will most likely not get the job anyway. It would not be increasing the coaching talent in this country one iota, which is fundamentally what any change should be about, rather than making football some kind of PC utopia.

Thoughts?

 

it should be best person gets the job fullstop,but it isnt that way at all.Most women couldnt pass the 'ladder' test to get into the fire service,so what happened ?they got rid of the ladder test. this sort of crap goes on all the time.Companys seem to be afraid to say sorry try next year to some people that shouldnt even be in for an interview never mind given the job

 

Will you now be adding the argument 'for', so I can make a fully reasoned decision before 'voting'?

 

When I can think of a "for" argument I'll gladly give it

I think there's a genuine difference between encouraging diversity, and forcing it... Certainly, they have very different consequences. If you force clubs to interview unprepared candidates, they're going to think of the rule as a joke, rather than an opportunity, and they're more likely to be prejudiced to be honest.

If you sack people as often as some clubs, you'd be interviewing a minority every six months... Is it a good thing to have candidates of minimum quality potentially getting jobs then falling out of the game? I just can't see the positive, other than appeasing "spot the difference" fans...

The FA has a responsibility to our game to increase opportunities for people of every race to gain the skills necessary to be better candidates, and I think legislation in that area would be more useful.

 

From the BBC:
Kick It Out: Managers not hired on merit, says anti-racism charity


English clubs' managerial hiring processes are "unfair, exclusive and discriminatory", according to anti-racism charity Kick It Out.

A statement from the campaign group said that chairmen don't make appointments "on the notion of merit".
Calling on the Rooney Rule to be introduced, Kick It Out said the current practices are "flawed".

But Wigan chairman Dave Whelan said: "Colour and religion has nothing to do with sport, especially football."

Football is not racist - Mourinho
On implementing the Rooney Rule - which requires teams to interview at least one black or minority ethnic candidate for a head coach vacancy - Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho said "there is no racism in football".

Speaking at a news conference on Friday before Sunday's match with Arsenal, the Portuguese said: "Football is not so stupid to close doors to people. If you are good, you get the job. If you are top, you are top."

In response to Mourinho's comments, former professional footballer and BBC Sport commentator Jason Roberts tweeted: "Mourinho - 'there is no racism in football' - there is only one reaction to this. It's an old one, but hahahahahahahahahahahahaha."

Whelan told BBC Radio 5 live he "didn't agree" with the Rooney Rule prescribing which candidates chairmen should interview. He said: "For most people on the planet now, colour has gone, finished forever. All I'm interested in is have they got the ability and can they do the job?

Wigan chairman Dave Whelan: "Everybody on the planet is equal - if you’ve got ability, let them perform"
"If I could get a manager who could take Wigan Athletic back into the Premier League guaranteed, where he is from makes no difference whatsoever."

Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor told BBC Sport last week there was a "hidden resistance" from English clubs to hiring black managers.

Carlisle boss Keith Curle and Huddersfield's Chris Powell are the only black managers at 92 Premier League and Football League clubs.

Approximately 25% of players are black or ethnic minority and ex-England captain Paul Ince wants the 'Rooney Rule' employed to stop the issue being "swept under the carpet".

The man who helped introduce the rule into American football in 2003, Dan Rooney, has also said that it would be a "positive thing" if the rule was adopted in English football.

Facts and figures
The PFA says about 18% of players on their coaching courses are black or from other ethnic minorities
There are 192 Uefa Pro Licence owners in England, and 14 of those are black coaches
About 25% of players in the professional game are non-white

There were five black managers in English professional football last season but, of Chris Hughton, Chris Powell, Paul Ince, Chris Kiwomya and Edgar Davids, only Powell now has a job.

Kick It Out's Paul Mortimer, a former Charlton Athletic and Aston Villa midfielder, told BBC Radio 5 live that there should be "transparency from the application process to the appointment" from football clubs.
He said: "This is most definitely an issue. All we want to do is to be able to expose the hirers and firers to people they may never have considered for these roles.

"The problem is you don't get the opportunity to go and knock the chairman's socks off because you don't get a reply to the job application.

"We talk about it every year, it is now time to implement something which will be a positive step forward. At the moment being a manger in this country is not an equal opportunity job."

QPR midfielder Joey Barton told BBC Radio 5 live he would like to see the English game lead the way with the

Rooney Rule
Speaking on the same programme, QPR midfielder Joey Barton added: "There is an underlying issue - maybe not in this country - but in others with racism. It would be great to see England at the forefront of something."
In its statement on Friday, Kick It Out said: "Gordon Taylor speaks about a 'hidden resistance' within the game and his members are asking questions about where football stands. We hear the Football League has failed to raise the issue at its own AGM but where are the Premier League and The Football Association on this matter?

"The current recruitment procedures are flawed, and we need to see accountable processes put in place which are fair, objective and challengeable to provide everybody possessing the necessary coaching qualifications and experience with the opportunity to apply and be considered on merit.

"As it stands, clubs as employers do not follow 'best practice' recruitment processes when they are hiring for these positions, and it is clear that appointments are not made on the notion of merit."





Tricky topic as some will find it far more 'emotionally' driven than others. But...must admit, I feel there is massive a difference between enabling and/or encouraging equality vs. enforcing it and/or 'appearing' to do the right thing for the sake of it.

In my mind, this rule is downright stupid.

If 14 of the 192 UEFA PRO licence owners in England are regarded as black, then you'd need to be interviewing 13-14 candidates per job to make this 'statistically fair' based on the 'Rooney Rule'. So, if you actually have a short list list of say 3-4 genuine candidates you feel are right, adding in one more to get your 'quota' up, when they might not have the credentials for the job is nothing short of farcical.

IF there is racism at higher levels, preventing talented professionals from having a fair chance, then of course it's wrong. No doubt about it. But where is the proof? And does adding quotas to interviews make ANY difference anyway? No!

It should be about a mix of ability and right fit for the job (club ethics, ambition, managerial style, etc.). Nothing else!

 

The other aspect of this is of course why should this only be black candidates, what about Chinese, Indian, Arab and all other groups, how many candidates should be travellers? then of course you have to include gays, women, transgender, transvestite, lesbian, bi-sexual, 18 year olds, disabled and of course the Jedhi Knights, we will have wonderful diversity which would make Joey Barton happy, our football teams would be like the NHS, councils and all those other public bodies commited to diversity, 25 person non specific gender or sexually orientated rainbow squad with 45 managers.

 

Basically beat me to the punch. This focus on the black candidates is nothing short of disturbing. I have to be honest here, the likes of Jason Roberts do my head in. His constant wanging on about racism being such a major issue in this country, I just don't see it. Football has for a long time been one sport where the colour doesn't matter. If the best player in the world was black, every club in the world would want him. If the best manager in the world was black, the same would apply.

Perhaps there is an underlying an issue but the Rooney rule is not the way to combat it for me. An owner should be allowed to interview who they like and employ who they like. Are we basically accusing the owners of the majority of the 92 clubs of essentially being a bit racist and needing forcibly educated? Can we not look at fit and proper tests in some way to incorporate something meaningful regarding diversity? I don't have the answer but the Rooney rule seems a bit racist, anti diversity, and an all round strange affair.

 

Basically the message is "Club management is too 'white'" from the "kick racism out campaign"? this in itself in damn right racist.

Could you imagine a white person telling the press that the NBA was too black? it wouldn't happen.

Racism is despicable and it's often misinterpreted as exclusive to ethnic Europeans which is madness and racist too.

The kick it out campaign should get it's act together and Paul Ince is a racist prick upset he failed at club management himself and needs to stop making excuses and grow up.

 

Any form of discrimination is wrong: positive or negative.

What will happen here is that we will end up with a 'token minority' getting an interview just to satisfy the requirements without being fit for purpose.

Where do we draw the line? A quick poll of the 92 teams seems to show that the number of lesbians, eskimos and even whales are under represented. I would have said what about gormless idiots but we have one of those already.

 

A true story. I used to work for a small consultancy as there were about two dozen of us in all, from the big boss down to the office temp.

One day we hired someone who just happened to be black. It turned out that they were utterly useless and were let go. How he got through the interview process I will never know but he was a pleasant enough chap and we still met afterwards for drinks and there was no hard feelings as he wasn't suited for us and we weren't suited for him. His replacement was also black, a co-indicdence, and it turns out that she was even more clueless and was also let go.

Guess what happened next. An invitation to whatever racial discrimiation tribunal thing and we were asked why we let two black people go and none of the white folks. We couldn't prove that they were clueless so we had to settle out of court for a lot. This really was a blow to the company; not just for the money but for the fact that two people were taken on in good faith and one decided to play the race card for their personal gain.

So, what's going to happen there in future when there's a number of interviewees for a position? Yes, you've guessed it that one playing the race card has really buggered it up for others who just happen to be black.

I have mentioned before about positive discrimination but I find that those who play the R Card are beneath contempt and they make the situation worse for everyone else.

 

I will give it a shot... at a general level..

Positive discrimination is a blunt weapon to attack institutionalized racism and predujice. As the status quo is highly effective at maintaining the..erm..status quo, and will likely proceed like that indefinately. ie white eton/oxford males employing and promoting white eton/oxford educated males (sounds familiar) regardless of ability and competence (to a certain degree), as they are comfortable in that environment and is what they 'know' ..plus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy (only eton males DO the job , so ONLY eton males CAN do the job)

Positive Discrimination is to smash that system and while is painful, can be very unfair on an individual level, disruptive and can be perceived as 'equally but opposite rascist' ..its primary goal is a 'one off level the playing the field' ..and allow underrepresented people to achieve positions of authority and influence ..ONCE that has been achieved the need for the positive discrimination is no longer necessary as those hiring and deciding will represent the FULL range of people ( this can take several generations to achieve however ...US army/police etc took 30+ years to fully see the effect of positive discrimination (for good and bad)

Also women where largely excluded from the workforce (apart from certain 'female' careers)..as they 'couldn't/shouldn't' do job X.. WW2 showed what bollox that was..the state needed women to do ..everything.. and they did competently and effectively.. at the end of WW2 ..'thanks for the help, but back to the kitchen for you' was tried..but the war had severely damaged the institutionalized discrimination (ie they could and should be able to do the jobs)..( although it would take 20 plus years for the fruits of that to start to play out in the 60's feminist movement) The playing field for women had fundamentally changed

(the BBC is trying similar with the one female comedian per panel show etc atm ..the 'female comedians' are relatively few and far between currently, and hence can be of variable quality ..but eventually (in 10 odd yrs)..we wont even notice

Ideally we would live in a true meritocracy ..but we don't..not even close ... And some institutions are far far worse than others at even attempting to get there...

With respect to Football/sport.. its weird that the institution of 'Sport' is apparently so resistant to change..as its is totally built upon a meritocracy, if you are good enough you are old enough ( even bearing in mind the s**t that black footballers had to go through in the 70's initially).. The main problem I see is a disconnect between meritocratic 'workers', but with a organizational structure that is deeply conservative (a few rich white males basically) ..and there-in lies the problem the few, (including the FA) are the..'power'. and it would seem little has changed since the first coaches/managers have emerged from the players of the 70's/80's ..and if it ain't gonna change naturally..maybe it needs to be 'forced' to change, even if, positive discrimination is a blunt temporary ( 30 yr temp) tool to use


Edit: spulling and worms ..I means words

 

Don't care it doesn't matter so stop going on about it.

 

Positive discrimination is never a temporary tool, it becomes the defacto mode of operation, invariably it also leads to a drop in the standards by which any entity performs as the benchmarks for acceptance are watered down to ensure that quotas are met, the idea of employing the best person to fill any role becomes secondary to the almost religious diversity zealotry that has become the default position of our public sector in this country. If you remove the meritocracy from sport you remove the one real chance that many disadvantaged individuals from ethnic minorities have, sport is all about winning and the liberal socialist view that competition is bad and people suffer because they can't compete ignores the history of human civilisation which has relied on that competitive urge to make the achievements that we have.

I was reading an article on the internet a few years ago, it talked about an American study into policing and specifically the significant increase in officer shootings involving the officers own weapon over a ten year period, what they had found was that the major proportion of the increase was due to the increase in female officers in front line reponse brought about by equality legislation taking them in line with male collegues. The simple fact was that female officers were physically unable to deal with male suspects on their own and in a number of cases the male suspects had overpowered the female officers taken their weapons and used them against the officers, equality is all well and good until physical strength, power and the different mental wiring that men and women have comes into play.

 

Racism is not a big issue anymore get over it.

 

It's not the issue it once was.

 

Not really about racism, it's the diversity industry that is really the issue.

 

Hahaha looks like its just me that thinks its a good idea then. Can't be arsed to argue my point fully, but the gist is this: there are 2 black managers in the football league, thats a smidge over 2% of league managers being black. Not sure what the percentage of black players in the league is, but its a damn sight higher than 2%. there is an imbalance there somewhere, regardless of what the cause of this is. This action may have some small impact on redressing the balance, temporarily until numbers catch up. I think that is fair.

 

Totally agree with your points, this is the downside of the 'blunt weapon' approach..it risks becomes the new 'status quo' with lower standards ..rather than a temporary drop (possibly 30 yrs though, as these changes are very slow and possibly even generational). Also, 'standards' shouldn't be lowered, but that doesn't mean that they cant be changed and adapted to be more inclusive of the particular skills everyone possibly brings (just because it always been done like X doesn't necc mean X is right)

Liberal socialism is about a level playing field ..not about lack of competition in my view ..competition is excellent as long as its fair..and all too often and many times in retrospect, things arent/wern't even close or trying to be fair.


Certainly not arguing for lack of meritocracy in sport, quite the opposite..the problem is at the management/owner/FA level, not within the 'workers' in the sports industry.

The rise in female cops being shot by their own weapons might (I tend to think likely) be due to exactly the point you made re different mental wiring /physical abilities ..ie the female cops are being trained /expected to behave like 'traditional male cop' (when they have different skills/assets to bring to the table. Again this is institutional and is v.slow to change.

(I am curious of the number of male cops who batter/shoot a suspect because he ..'looked at them funny' ..as in the US, the cops are being trained to deal with problems with overwhelming aggression atm, a traditionally male attribute (aggression being both good and bad depending on how it is used))

 

i think 50% of nominee's for the MOBO's should be white,99% of people in charge of huge multinational companys should be working class, the membership of the womens institute should be 50% male and that clubs in premier league should be forced to interview managers from a lower division before they interview some know nowt from abroad ! oops sorry am i being a bit racist there?

 

Lots of sense coming from Nolberto's Salsa Inferno.

The Rooney Rule, and its success in America, is interesting, because really, there is actually no 'positive discrimination' involved- clubs aren't obliged to hire the candidates they interview, and I don't buy for a minute the suggestion that this rule would stop any white candidates from being interviewed. What seems to have happened over there is that many clubs ended up getting good feelings about candidates they would otherwise have overlooked, and hired them legitimately. The fact that black coaches started getting hired once the rule came into play suggests that the decisions makers weren't consciously trying to block the paths of black managers- instead, the overwhelming prevalence of white managers led to a situation where when these guys thought of a 'managerial' type, they pictured a white man- because all the managers they've ever seen have been white. That leads to a vicious cycle which initiatives like the Rooney Rule help break down. People with the Daily Mail mentality would have you think that if a rule like this comes into play here then Paul Ince will be automatically handed the England job, but that's just nonsense.

That said, I don't think the Rooney Rule could work applied here directly as it was in American Football, but there has to be some equivalent initiative tailor made especially for British football. It shouldn't have to be necessary, but the fact that there are only two black managers is pretty shameful, and to me is enough to suggest that something has to be done to break the cycle. Considering there are virtually no black managers who've had the chance to build up the level of experience that's usually required for the game's top jobs, it would get a bit silly- i.e. Chelsea interview Hughton, and of course say "thanks Chris, but we'll go with the white guy who's won the champions league". Understandable.

The problem for me is that new, young, unproven black managers are almost always overlooked in favour of equally unproven white managers. That can't be justified. I'd like to see a rule that says something like… clubs are allowed to employ a rookie white manager only if they have also interviewed a black manager. If, then, the ratio of new managers becomes more in line with the ratio of black/white players, x years down the line, there will be a wider pool of black managers who are in a position to compete for the top jobs on merit and experience. It would be nice if clubs didn't have to be babysat like this, but the statistics to me suggest that they do.

P.S. If you think the appointment of first-time managers is currently a functioning 'meritocracy', you do realise that you're therefore saying you believe white candidates are intrinsically better than black ones?