The Rooney Rule

[dsqpr]

ds, the issue with your argument is that short players are not represented because they aren't of the right build to play that sport. Despite that, what you see is that there are a few extremely talented individuals who are significantly shorter than most in the league and they make it because their inherent ability makes their height a limited factor. The difference between basketball and football is that the element of height actually has an effect on the quality of players. There is a correlation between performance and height in general. Discrimination isn't what its called because the quality of the player is affected by their height (In general). There is absolutely no correlation however between race and managerial skill in football. There isn't even enough data to prove that white managers are better than black managers or vice versa because there haven't been a significant amount of black managers within the sport (certainly in the UK) to get enough data to validate the information.

How on earth do you know that?!

In the first place, the PC brigade would throw all their toys out of the pram if anybody DARED to try to put together a study to show such a correlation. And secondly, the fact that nobody has put together such a study does NOT mean that such a correlation does not exist!

I don't know if they are correlated anymore than anybody else. But any open minded person must accept that they might be.

[dsqpr]

Education alone...with no legislation of any sort? Do you honestly think that's realistic?

I don't know Stanley. But regardless, I'm not in favour of being racist in an attempt to combat racism.

[acricketer]

There is a distinct prejudice against indigenous players. Let's start with anti British before anti anything else. How does the Rooney rule reflect home nation players? It doesn't.

If there is a Rooney rule for managers there should be a Van Nistlerooy rule for home grown talent.

[nasser95]

How on earth do you know that?!

In the first place, the PC brigade would throw all their toys out of the pram if anybody DARED to try to put together a study to show such a correlation. And secondly, the fact that nobody has put together such a study does NOT mean that such a correlation does not exist!

I don't know if they are correlated anymore than anybody else. But any open minded person must accept that they might be.

That is arguably the most ridiculous statement on this thread. It is 100% impossible to make a fair assessment on any correlation. There is no factual evidence linking them. To suggest closed mindedness in believing that is totally unfounded. And for the record, there is no study showing that white managers are any good under any circumstances.

[brightonr]

This is true but the issue is that they don't get the opportunity to prove themselves. Hence, they don't get a chance to really become 'successful' and gain the pre-requisites needed.

OK Nasser, I'll try to inhabit your world for a while.

Please could you give me a list of (let's start with British black managers/potential managers) that you feel are currently deserving of getting jobs in a) the premier league and b) the championship.

[nasser95]

OK Nasser, I'll try to inhabit your world for a while.

Please could you give me a list of (let's start with British black managers/potential managers) that you feel are currently deserving of getting jobs in a) the premier league and b) the championship.

You really aren't understanding the point of the Rooney rule. Awin and I have both stated the key flaw behind what you are trying to say and you continue to ignore it. In your world, there is a monopolisation of jobs for managers who are already working. This isn't what a good job market should be like.

[1QPRDK]

How on earth do you know that?!

In the first place, the PC brigade would throw all their toys out of the pram if anybody DARED to try to put together a study to show such a correlation. And secondly, the fact that nobody has put together such a study does NOT mean that such a correlation does not exist!

I don't know if they are correlated anymore than anybody else. But any open minded person must accept that they might be.

If you have time on your hands d, then here is a website with all time stats for premier league managers up until 12/05/2014 (nicely leaving Ramsey out of it ) http://www.barriesview.com/all-time-...ger-statistics

Should be possible to make a win-percentage stat for black managers, if you know how to count them.

An interesting fact is one for our good friend Toninho, who sadly is not amongst us anylonger here at WATRB: Mick McCarthy apparently has the worst win ratio of all managers with more than 100 games in the PL

[brightonr]

You really aren't understanding the point of the Rooney rule. Awin and I have both stated the key flaw behind what you are trying to say and you continue to ignore it. In your world, there is a monopolisation of jobs for managers who are already working. This isn't what a good job market should be like.

I fully understand the point of it Nasser.

I don't agree with it at all though, for various reasons.

Firstly, it's nothing other than reverse discrimination. For every token black man, it could mean one less white man. Note I used the word "could". Besides, what black man would want to be considered for a job because of his skin colour? Rather insulting, is it not?

Secondly, you haven't provided me with a list of names yet. I think I know the reason. And I think the reason is that it would be a very short list indeed. Which sort of proves the point that it is a lack of options that is the issue, NOT INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM. There isn't any.

I tend to think like others, that as more and more black players retire and get their badges, the percentage will gradually increase. I hope so, because it would prove our point beyond doubt.

Looking back on the failures of the likes of John Barnes and Paul Ince, I think it's important to remember that they lost their positions due to poor results, as opposed to anything more sinister. Chris Powell lost his job at Charlton, yet he managed to get another with Huddersfield.

Our very own Chris Ramsey had no experience of higher level management. He did however posess a large number of coaching qualifications along with a fairly successful track record of working with younger players and bringing them through. He was given a chance with us because of this. Or are we to assume it was simply because he is Les's mate? He hardly set the world alight as caretaker, yet despite this, was still offered the job on a permanent basis. I would have quite understood if he hadn't, due to his results with the first team.

Finally, where will this nonsense end? Not trying to be clever in the slightest, but should we be aiming for quotas of Jewish managers, Asian managers etc. Because it's really no different is it?

[nasser95]

I fully understand the point of it Nasser.

I don't agree with it at all though, for various reasons.

Firstly, it's nothing other than reverse discrimination. For every token black man, it could mean one less white man. Note I used the word "could". Besides, what black man would want to be considered for a job because of his skin colour? Rather insulting, is it not?

Secondly, you haven't provided me with a list of names yet. I think I know the reason. And I think the reason is that it would be a very short list indeed. Which sort of proves the point that it is a lack of options that is the issue, NOT INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM. There isn't any.

I tend to think like others, that as more and more black players retire and get their badges, the percentage will gradually increase. I hope so, because it would prove our point beyond doubt.

Looking back on the failures of the likes of John Barnes and Paul Ince, I think it's important to remember that they lost their positions due to poor results, as opposed to anything more sinister. Chris Powell lost his job at Charlton, yet he managed to get another with Huddersfield.

Our very own Chris Ramsey had no experience of higher level management. He did however posess a large number of coaching qualifications along with a fairly successful track record of working with younger players and bringing them through. He was given a chance with us because of this. Or are we to assume it was simply because he is Les's mate? He hardly set the world alight as caretaker, yet despite this, was still offered the job on a permanent basis. I would have quite understood if he hadn't, due to his results with the first team.

Finally, where will this nonsense end? Not trying to be clever in the slightest, but should we be aiming for quotas of Jewish managers, Asian managers etc. Because it's really no different is it?

That paragraph proves that you don't understand the point. Institutionalised racism limited the opportunities of black managers in the leagues. This means that the list would be short as opportunities are limited. As a result of this, managers aren't given an opportunity to gain the experience required to take bigger roles. As Awin said, teams like Tranmere could have their pick of the best Black managers ever, or the best female managers available. They don't go for them because it isn't as transparent as the players market. This is a cycle that will not be broken until a rule is put in place that brings transparency. Once this rule is brought in, transparency improves and we can see those who are right for the job getting more opportunities to prove that they are.

[brightonr]

That paragraph proves that you don't understand the point. Institutionalised racism limited the opportunities of black managers in the leagues. This means that the list would be short as opportunities are limited. As a result of this, managers aren't given an opportunity to gain the experience required to take bigger roles. As Awin said, teams like Tranmere could have their pick of the best Black managers ever, or the best female managers available. They don't go for them because it isn't as transparent as the players market. This is a cycle that will not be broken until a rule is put in place that brings transparency. Once this rule is brought in, transparency improves and we can see those who are right for the job getting more opportunities to prove that they are.

Sorry Nasser, but you're just repeating the same incoherent argument over again.

As for the opportunities being limited, that would be the case for any ethnicity, all the time clubs are looking for either "names", successful track records or experience. It simply isn't racism. It's just the way things are. This is football. Professional sport. Recruitment decisions will always be subjective.

Anyway, no point in me trying to explain if you can't see the obvious. My main objections are that the rule specifically attempts to circumnavigate the way things have always been done and probably always will be. If you want to see that as racism, then I'm afraid racism is here to stay. But the vast majority of us know it isn't racism. And I suspect if we thought for one moment it was, we would have plenty to say about that.

Trust me on this. Such a rule, if implemented over here, would cause far more division than it would ever solve. These things, whilst probably thought of with best intentions, are ill advised.

[Awin]

Brighton you might be right were it not for the fact that clubs hire managers on the 4 basis mentioned earlier namely being:
They look the part (short black wavy hair & suit), they are good in front of the cameras (PR), they are ex pros and they would appease the fan base.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

Can I just say its a law of averages and nothing else.

Cheers

[1QPRDK]

Sorry Nasser, but you're just repeating the same incoherent argument over again.

As for the opportunities being limited, that would be the case for any ethnicity, all the time clubs are looking for either "names", successful track records or experience. It simply isn't racism. It's just the way things are. This is football. Professional sport. Recruitment decisions will always be subjective.

Anyway, no point in me trying to explain if you can't see the obvious. My main objections are that the rule specifically attempts to circumnavigate the way things have always been done and probably always will be. If you want to see that as racism, then I'm afraid racism is here to stay. But the vast majority of us know it isn't racism. And I suspect if we thought for one moment it was, we would have plenty to say about that.

Trust me on this. Such a rule, if implemented over here, would cause far more division than it would ever solve. These things, whilst probably thought of with best intentions, are ill advised.

Seems to me that you guys are disagreeing on a couple of points.

First issue is the meaning of the terms "institutional racism". Seems that nasser is relying on an interpretation where it is the net effects of the institutions in place such as: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. My guess is that brighton would reserve the term "racism" for situations where racism is the cause of the discrimination, ie. that someone is actively chosen or not because of the colour of their skin.

Both of you could be right, because my guess is that there will be more of the first type than the second type of racism around.

The funny thing with the Rooney rule is that it in effect creates more of the second type of racism, like ds pointed out earlier, while trying to create less of the first type. And this probably has something to do with the second disagreement of whether or not the Rooney rule is seen as a good thing.

Personally I would rather avoid affirmative action policies in football, and would much rather see someone figure out a way to make the manager market as transparent as the player market, and then the issue would solve itself.

[Stanley]

Ok, so as you're now broadening it out, for argument's sake let us assume an organisation is institutionally racist (any organisation, not just a footballing body). How would you then tackle that problem (which is what Rooney's Rule is attempting to achieve)?

With education.

Education alone...with no legislation of any sort? Do you honestly think that's realistic?

I don't know Stanley.

Personally I would rather avoid affirmative action policies in football, and would much rather see someone figure out a way to make the manager market as transparent as the player market, and then the issue would solve itself.

I agree that this should be the way forward 1QPRDK. It's where creative minds and think tanks need to focus energies towards the solution.

I also agree that some of the disagreements in this debate have been more about definitions than the principles and ethics of the issue.

[californiahoop]

Good debate folks, I personally don't see any candidates for current managerial roles, this I suspect is because of lack the of black role models in the past, which might touch on historical racism, but moving on.

Our very own Nedum, an educated, articulate young man, Micah Richards, a property magnate, Henry, Hasslebank, to name a few maybe future managers?

The above and probably several more I haven't mention have conducted themselves in a manner that suggest they could translate there football knowledge into the managerial arena?

Things take time to evolve, slowly, but things do change, I still remember Viv Anderson getting his first cap.