Rooney Rule Take Two

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/31907241

being a short fella, who's over 40, can I perhaps ask for a Rooney rule?

I'm already there, I arrived last night

hampo171 wrote:The polish kids at my daughters school never had free milk GSC. Not sure what females being physically unable to pilot a plane due to G forces has to do with football management. Maybe we should discuss why there aren't more women doing the bins, adds about the same to the discussion.

?

This has been a strange old thread. Can't believe some people are so vehemently against a woman getting an interview. It's a damn interview!!

female tennis players - prize money is due to the money you make the tournament. Has nothing to do with how long you're out there for. That's sport - Tyson made more money in 76 seconds than Ryan Sandes has made winning the 4Desert series. Also women aren't opposed to playing five (not particularly excited by it mind) Tournament directors won't go for it because Grand Slams are already time challenged.

- Female pilots... Strange equivalent to use. If there was a law making air forces have to interview/put through a physical examination one female pilot per jet... what exactly would be the issue? Every female shouldn't bother because 99.99% can't? By my calculations, that means there are a couple thousand women in Britain capable. What do you lose letting them give it a go?

Don't worry GSC, lack of sleep for the last two weeks resulted in me confusing you and Stella.

Don't worry GSC, lack of sleep for the last two weeks resulted in me confusing you and Stella.

hampo171 wrote:Don't worry GSC, lack of sleep for the last two weeks resulted in me confusing you and Stella.

Don't upset him.

I'm distraught

female tennis players - prize money is due to the money you make the tournament. Has nothing to do with how long you're out there for.

Can you explain that for me Raf, I was always under the impression that it was the man's game that made the most money (hence why they got paid more.)
I don't understand paying somebody the same as someone else when it's them that brings the crowds (IE Tyson fighting a Julias Francis/Danny Williams type, Tyson gets the lion share)

As of now, I think the men's game probably does make more money - but the genie can't be put back in the bottle. In the early 2000s, when the equal pay argument made its final big push - the women's game was just hotter. Men's tennis had no face, and the only really recognisable face was an ageing Agassi. By comparison, the WTA had an American sibling rivalry, some continentals, and a comehither pin up in Kournikova. Couldn't even hope to claim that the WTA was the unwanted step child.

As I said, as of now, the ATP probably generates more money, but when the argument kicked into high gear, that was not the case - or at least was arguable

Cheers Raf, makes sense that. Strike while the irons hot to get a pay rise. Good on em.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:In what sense? When evidence suggests it worked quite quickly in America?

The eye for an eye analogy doesn't work. It's not negative for a negative

And how can you prove endemic racism? With facts and figures that suggest under representation? By accounts from those who suggest discrimination?

It's like saying there's no proof of homophobia in football. Yet there are wide reports of there being far more gay players than we know who are too, maybe not scared, but certainly not comfortable coming out due to how people may react. And not personally, down to impact on their careers.

But you can't prove that, either.

Positive discrimination isn't even discrimination by definition of what discrimination is.

Again, what is there to lose?

Oh dear. The very nature of positive discrimination is discrimination! All-women shortlists, in politics for instance, discriminate against men. All-black shortlists discriminate against white people.

And yes, it is a negative for a negative. Let's stop this racial discrimination. But how? By picking people based on their skin colour. Let's stop gender discrimination. But how? By picking people based on their gender.

This is the sort of idea that the Rooney Rule leans towards.

How can you prove endemic racism? Well, what I struggle to grasp is if there is endemic racism, why does it not reach the playing field? Why is it only applicable to coaching?

Depends. Some would say it does reach the playing field. Whether it be commentators or fans considering certain players to be certain stereotypes in their quite innocent but flawed descriptions, or whether it be the lack of black captains in the English game.

Firstly, you'd need to look up the word discrimination. Secondly, do you not think there's a reason these things end up happening? Why do you think this is even a discussion point? Because we don't want to appear racist? Or because the system has clearly got flaws that let down minorities resulting in their lack of representation? Don't you think there's a flaw in a system where black players feel discouraged entirely by the thought of undertaking their coaching licenses? Or is that just their fault for not trying hard enough?

The problem with endemic racism is its extremely hard to prove. Because it isn't blatant, it isn't altogether on purpose and it isn't vocalised.

Again, youve not described a negative action to me yet. All you've done is twist the labelling. Nor do you seem to understand the point that all that is being asked in this rule is that a minority candidate be interviewed. The "but where does it end?" argument is too stupid for me to even denounce.

How is "where does it end" argument stupid? It's the next logical step.

If you offer token interviews to candidates, and such token interviews don't produce greater employment numbers for the perceived minority, do you really think the powers that implement the rule will be satisfied?

As for: "Don't you think there's a flaw in a system where black players feel discouraged entirely by the thought of undertaking their coaching licenses?"

I don't know where you produced that from, but the last time I checked, 18% of people on coaching courses are black/ethnic minority. Which, given the population demographics as a whole, is more than perfectly representational.

And 30% of players in the top four English leagues are black/ethnic minority. Which is more than perfectly representational, again.

I produced that from various articles, quotes and studies by people into the game. I shall find them later, but a quick google search will give you plenty of opinions and facts.

Its not the next step. It's fear-mongering. It hasn't happened anywhere else, and its hard enough to implement this rule, so I don't see how you think we'd just go "you have to have black managers." There is no basis to that. Where does anything end? The fit and proper persons test hasn't lead to the FA taking clubs and giving them to "good" people. It's pertinent to consider that considering the fact the FA is telling people they cannot sell clubs they own to just anyone. Why is that fair?

Also the Rooney Rule, or the equivalent for female coaches, is not positive discrimination, it does not discriminate against white coaches or male coaches. The club is free to interview 99 white or male coaches so long as they interview one minority or female coach. That's not positive discrimination. Positive discrimination does exist, for example that boards of companies have to have a certain number of women on them. 

This is about creating opportunities for people where all the evidence suggests that they don't get opportunities. 

An argument about time and money is absolutely ridiculous, it will be negligible.

Yes, the 18% statistic is from the PFA.

And I don't think the next step is to "have to have black managers." I imagine the next step, eventually, would be quotas of coaching staff, or incentives given to clubs who hire black/minority ethnics.

May I ask, is the under-representation of white people on the playing side of the game a worrying thing for you? Do you think there should be some remedy for that? And, if not, why do you apply a different course of action?

I, of course, don't have a problem with it. Such players are there on merit.

Duty281 wrote:Yes, the 18% statistic is from the PFA.

And I don't think the next step is to "have to have black managers." I imagine the next step, eventually, would be quotas of coaching staff, or incentives given to clubs who hire black/minority ethnics.

May I ask, is the under-representation of white people on the playing side of the game a worrying thing for you? Do you think there should be some remedy for that? And, if not, why do you apply a different course of action?

I, of course, don't have a problem with it. Such players are there on merit.

Then why do you have a problem with a scheme to encourage and help minorities get fairer representation in management?

I wouldn't say there's a historic under-representation of white people in English football. So it doesnt really worry me at all cos there's no pattern to fear

Personally I thought the application of the Rooney rule in the States clearly showed that it ends at an interview.

Yeah I really don't think the Rooney Rule did that much.

Leslie Frazier comes to mind as a guy who had multiple HC interviews for many years but was always passed over, before being promoted internally.

He lasted 3 years if memory served

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Yes, the 18% statistic is from the PFA.

And I don't think the next step is to "have to have black managers." I imagine the next step, eventually, would be quotas of coaching staff, or incentives given to clubs who hire black/minority ethnics.

May I ask, is the under-representation of white people on the playing side of the game a worrying thing for you? Do you think there should be some remedy for that? And, if not, why do you apply a different course of action?

I, of course, don't have a problem with it. Such players are there on merit.

Then why do you have a problem with a scheme to encourage and help minorities get fairer representation in management?

I wouldn't say there's a historic under-representation of white people in English football. So it doesnt really worry me at all cos there's no pattern to fear

Because I don't think it is a progressive move for society.

We need to move away from drawing divisive lines in the sand and categorising people by the colour of their skin.

Where discrimination exists in football (something I haven't seen evidence for) tackle it with the law, not this counter-productive rule.

You've seen no evidence of discrimination in football?

Oops, missed out a word or two.

That is to say, discrimination within coaching/managerial selection in football.

It's the problem with endemic racism. You can't really see it in the light of day

Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

If you just learned to spell then you really wouldn't be so disappointed every time the Blue Man Group turned you down

Duty281 wrote:Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

That's a different subject entirely though Duty.

Duty281 wrote:Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

What was the job, Duty?

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

What was the job, Duty?

I believe it was shepherding flying pigs...

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

What was the job, Duty?

https://bskyb.taleo.net/careersection/graduates/jobdetail.ftl?job=375224

The clue is in the 'job' description.

Interesting thread.

So, allow me to summarise before I get going here.  What we seem to need are  women who are suitably qualified to take a highly qualified position.  We then give them equal opportunity to either succeed or fail on their merit.  Sounds reasonable and fair to me.

The first question then is, how many women actually WANT to go through a very demanding, intensive, difficult process to get to the point where they would join the other (predominantly male) candidates in an interview process that could be very tough and highly competitive.  At present, it seems to me, very few.

But that doesn't mean the (apparent) low numbers of those women wishing to 'push for the top' should be discouraged, nor should they have any obstacles placed in their way on the basis of their gender alone.

Rather than talk about quotas, or 'positive discrimination' (something I am against in any profession), could the whole issue not be resolved by simply encouraging more women to enter the fray and at least have a go.?

Could it be that women are caught in the endless loop of: Apathy within the coaching fraternity = reduced enthusiasm amongst women to try = small numbers of candidates = apathy within the coaching fraternity.....

Somehow this loop needs to be broken and in my humble opinion, the best place to start would be with the coaching system.  Encourage and enthuse women to come forward. Don't make anything easier for them than it would be for men.... they should take the same course and have to meet the same criteria, but those who do, and achieve the qualifications MUST then be given a fair go.

Someone, somewhere, has to set the ball rolling.

We don't want tokens, we don't want patsies. What we want are good coaches either male or female... it makes no difference to me.... who will produce technically sound footballers who can play attractive football to a high standard. If a woman can do that, they I say we should encourage it.

Just as an afterthought; the most successful England national football team in years has been the England Women's team.  They reached the final of the Woman's European Championship tournament... a feat never yet achieved by the men's team in the male equivalent.  They were managed by a woman.

The FA sacked her.

Duty281 wrote:

Stella wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just wanted to add that, whilst browsing through work experience opportunities for the summer, I found one vacancy that I am not allowed to apply for simply because of the colour of my skin.

This half-baked rubbish is somehow allowed under the guise of positive discrimination. It would not be allowed the other way round!

What was the job, Duty?

https://bskyb.taleo.net/careersection/graduates/jobdetail.ftl?job=375224

Not once in that job advert does it say you can't apply if you're a certain colour.

They have already been banging on about sexist comments in the English game as it is with assistant referee's and physio's that are women at clubs. Are you not just even more likely to increase the sexist actions by having more women involved in the men's game?

Also, just another point to note. There is a women's football league, is that not just for women? Why not go and manage where they belong? You don't see men wanting to go and manage in the women's league do you? Why should there even be a debate about this.

What difference does it make in football if there are only a few black managers? Does that mean its discrimination? No, it just means that any black managers that are unemployed aren't good enough for the job or aren't suited to the job. That's only the same in any business, company or manufacturer when going for an application. Its hardly like its a problem.

Its just ridiculous. You've got matters like referee's which play a incredibly huge part in the outcome of results that needs to be sorted out pronto and Fifa are still prioritising this "Rooney rule"? It gets beyond a joke sometimes.

FootballLight wrote:They have already been banging on about sexist comments in the English game as it is with assistant referee's and physio's that are women at clubs. Are you not just even more likely to increase the sexist actions by having more women involved in the men's game?

Also, just another point to note. There is a women's football league, is that not just for women? Why not go and manage where they belong? You don't see men wanting to go and manage in the women's league do you? Why should there even be a debate about this.


.

Well actually, you do.

The England women's team was managed by Hope Powell, and a jolly good job she was making of it too.  OK, she could be a bit harsh with some of the players, but when Alex Ferguson did that at Man Utd, it was seen as 'strong management'.  Demanding high standards is no bad thing.

As I said above, she had a very good track record in the job and indeed, England women had only been eliminated from their last tournament in the quarter finals in a penalty shoot out.  It's not as if that hasn't happened to the men's team at any time, has it, lads..?

But a letter of complaint about her was sent to the FA by a chap named Keith Boanas.  Never heard of him..?  Well, he'd applied for the job of manager of the England Women's team at the same time as Powell, in 1998, but didn't even get an interview.  Powell got the job and Boanas went off to manage the Estonian national women's team. He said nothing about Powell until 2013.  He then complained that Powell's appointment had been 'political'.  Well, it is true that she is female, black and a lesbian, so if that had been the case, then she certainly ticked every box..!!

But she had a very good record in the job.  I could list it here, but it would bore everybody.  Let's just say she was comprehensively the best person for the job.  

Boanas..?  His track record as manager of the Estonian Women's team includes having not qualified for any tournaments, and defeats of
0 -12 to both France and Iceland.  Not exactly an inspiring record, is it..?

So, why should he get so uppity about Powell?  Could it be that, not only did he not get the job himself (or even an interview for it), but by now he was married and his wife, Pauline Copeland, had been the England goalkeeper until dropped by Powell and, oh by the way, is the daughter of Ted Copeland, who Powell replaced as England manager.  

So, no grounds for personal grudges there, then.......

Boanas wrote his letter to the FA in July 2013.  Powell was sacked in August 2013.

Men want to, and do apply for jobs in women's football.... and in some cases, don't like being bested by a woman.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If men can apply for jobs in the women's game, then women can apply for jobs in the men's game.  You can't have it all ways.

FootballLight wrote:
What difference does it make in football if there are only a few black managers? Does that mean its discrimination? No, it just means that any black managers that are unemployed aren't good enough for the job or aren't suited to the job. That's only the same in any business, company or manufacturer when going for an application. Its hardly like its a problem.

Non of that explains why there aren't more black people taking the course initially though does it? Unless they're being told they're not good enough before that, which frankly is wrong.

hampo171 wrote:

FootballLight wrote:
What difference does it make in football if there are only a few black managers? Does that mean its discrimination? No, it just means that any black managers that are unemployed aren't good enough for the job or aren't suited to the job. That's only the same in any business, company or manufacturer when going for an application. Its hardly like its a problem.

Non of that explains why there aren't more black people taking the course initially though does it? Unless they're being told they're not good enough before that, which frankly is wrong.

That's when they apply. And if a black manager has to apply for a job, what if 1 applies for the Man United job and he last managed at Luton Town. What would United turn around and say? They wouldn't say because your black you can have our managers positions. Maybe some black people don't want to take the courses. I haven't heard of any racism or discrimination in management so its not as if they have anything to be scared of.

hampo171 wrote:

FootballLight wrote:
What difference does it make in football if there are only a few black managers? Does that mean its discrimination? No, it just means that any black managers that are unemployed aren't good enough for the job or aren't suited to the job. That's only the same in any business, company or manufacturer when going for an application. Its hardly like its a problem.

Non of that explains why there aren't more black people taking the course initially though does it? Unless they're being told they're not good enough before that, which frankly is wrong.

I refer you to my message some three or four posts back that addresses that very issue.

FootballLight wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

FootballLight wrote:
What difference does it make in football if there are only a few black managers? Does that mean its discrimination? No, it just means that any black managers that are unemployed aren't good enough for the job or aren't suited to the job. That's only the same in any business, company or manufacturer when going for an application. Its hardly like its a problem.

Non of that explains why there aren't more black people taking the course initially though does it? Unless they're being told they're not good enough before that, which frankly is wrong.

That's when they apply. And if a black manager has to apply for a job, what if 1 applies for the Man United job and he last managed at Luton Town. What would United turn around and say? They wouldn't say because your black you can have our managers positions. Maybe some black people don't want to take the courses. I haven't heard of any racism or discrimination in management so its not as if they have anything to be scared of.

That's a stupid example really isn't it, that would be like me applying to run a bank because I've worked in a branch for the last four years. Maybe some don't, but what about the ones who do? The ones who don't want to waste an awful lot of their money to not be given a fair crack at the end of the line? Should we not be trying to do all we can to support them?

Even still, its hardly like a major problem in football is it at the moment.

So because it isn't a major issue it should't be discussed?

The Rooney Rule can only be a good thing, it gets more people on the coaching courses, more people getting interviews, more ideas being passed over. It may not effect the premier league for ten years, I'd be it would be well received lower down the ladder though.

hampo171 wrote:So because it isn't a major issue it should't be discussed?

The Rooney Rule can only be a good thing, it gets more people on the coaching courses, more people getting interviews, more ideas being passed over. It may not effect the premier league for ten years, I'd be it would be well received lower down the ladder though.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed and it isn't important. What I am saying is that do you not think there are more immediate matters such as referee's to sort out currently. This can be an issue to deal with over time but there are other problems that need to be sorted immediately.

It's a simple issue to sort out so not sure why you think it needs time. Referees will never get better until they have to explain their decisions, that won't happen as the governing bodies are nervous about players not keeping their both shut while around the referee.

Its simple but its taking more time than what it should and if the appropriate bodies are going to mess around over this then move onto something else first.

Wait, did you say we shouldn't have women because it will encourage the sexists? That's like saying there's racists in this country so get rid of anyone who isn't white from our shores. Which would be extremely idiotic

hampo171 wrote:It's a simple issue to sort out so not sure why you think it needs time. Referees will never get better until they have to explain their decisions, that won't happen as the governing bodies are nervous about players not keeping their both shut while around the referee.

Referees are accountable to the FA. They are not - and should not be - accountable to players, managers, fans, pundits, journalists or anybody else of that stripe.

The court of public opinion can, and does, say anything it likes about match officials, but it must not be allowed to influence them because those people are not interested in the game of football. Fans don't give a toss about fair play, all they care about is that their team wins. They will cheer their own players to the rafters for diving in the penalty area and they'll call it "being passionate", but when an opponent does the same thing, they'll boo him and call him a cheat.

In any game of football, only the referee can be truly trusted to be impartial and his integrity, honesty and fairness cannot be subjected to influences that would, given the chance, willingly and blatantly pervert that.

When footballers and fans become honest (and I reckon I'll never live to see the day), then they can have more of a say in the matter, but for now the status quo must prevail for the good of the game. Refereeing error must be expected and accepted for what it is - honest human failing.

And if you think you can do better: http://www.thefa.com/my-football/referee/general-information

Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

Last time I reffed I refused to believe the people who were telling. Me the game should be finished. I'd been so bad with my timekeeping it overran by 20 minutes. Never again

Did you ref the Derby Brum game Dolph

4L's that's ridiculous, some fans are honest, some want it their own way. There is no reason why a Ref can't discuss a contentious decision after the game and explain his decision. You might not agree with the reason but at least there is a reason for it.

A rule needs bringing in and enforcing to stop them surrounding the ref though, start showing them yellow's/red's and it will soon stop.

Back to the Rooney Rule, if there wasn't any problems, complaints about this at all FL's then it wouldn't be discussed. The example that 4L's gave about Hope Powell is a reason (in my eyes) by itself why something needs to be done to encourage it.

I actually think refs would get more slack if they admitted their mistakes and explained reasoning. The FA treating them like an endangered species almost makes them an easier target

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Wait, did you say we shouldn't have women because it will encourage the sexists? That's like saying there's racists in this country so get rid of anyone who isn't white from our shores. Which would be extremely idiotic

That's like adding fuel to a fire though isn't it. Obviously, we give them the choice to come into this country and into this game that is already flustered with racist/sexist problems, but they can't moan about it that much because they are coming into a game where it is known and proven that there is racism if you know what I mean.

Also just a point referee's decision in the Premier League are more accurate than they ever have been.