Anyone watch BBC3?

Anderson walked - as others said he went to Boro with Robson. He would have got the sack eventually because ,like barnes ,he was a poor manager. Lot of Celtic fans have gone ballistic about the Barnes interview - a lot saying he took them backwards! Did a great job at tranmere as well :-(

 

Thought it was a good program myself , covered the full range of issues from his fathers experience to anti-semitic Spurs situation and the Asian side of things. Can't understand why John Barnes experience to some people wouldn't be valid on a show like this,even if he is a poor manager

 

Maybe, just maybe, these jobs are being given to the best applicant regardless.

 

Yeah I agree. I thought Clarke Carlisle was very good and the scenes with his father particular moving. And I agree John Barnes is a very valid guest and always has a very insightful view on racism. I just knew everyone would jump on the fact that he was a poor manager. But short of glib points on here about 'how many black people applied' there didn't seem to be much resolution to how thoroughly unrepresentative management positions are of those playing the game. Much the same issues in American Football I believe. It would have been interesting to explore the parallells of how quota systems have worked inside and outside sport to draw more informed conclusions.

The most telling thing for me was firstly how far we have come, in comparision to the Polish example, which has been achieved through what a lot on this thread would blindly dismiss as 'political correctness gone mad'. But secondly how far we still have to go, particularly with the Asian community who are often forgotten in the football/racism debate.

 

Why is it a "glib point" to ask how many black players are actually applying for jobs?? If we'd had half a dozen black players on saying they'd applied for numerous jobs and never even got an interview then there would have been some substance to the programme. All we get is a woe is me tale from a manager hiding behind the fact that he was given a golden opportunity and blew it. That's why he has struggled to get a job since. Nowt to do with the fact that he is black. In fact, if he wasn't John Barnes he wouldn't have got the job in the first place.

I thought it was an interesting stat that 25% of footballers are black when less than 10% of the population is so if anything they are over represented. They didn't really focus on that though funnily enough. They also didn't mention how many of these players have done or intend to do their pro license. Players like David James, Ferdinand, Heskey, Marlon Harewood and Ledley King are all getting to the end of their careers. I wonder how many of them will go for the license and pursue a career in management??

 

Yes but you don't know the answer to any of those questions. You are making a far wilder and less evidence based assumption than the documentary did. Plus you're ignoring the aspirational limitation factor. If a black player sees that football clubs aren't appointing black managers then why waste their time trying to be one if they are unlikely to get the opportunity.

There was a study by two economists in America, Bertrand and Mullainathan, where they sent applications for jobs, half with overtly sounding African American names and half with traditional white names. The applications for African American names were 50% less likely to get an interview.

 

How am I making assumptions? I'm asking for the evidence that shows that black players who are strong candidates and have their pro license are being rejected purely because they are black. Other than an anecdote from John Barnes there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this at all. One assumption I will male is if there was some evidence they would have disclosed it.

Can't see the relevance of the study in the USA. I don't think that many players have African American names, and even if they did, as the players will already be known they're not going to be pre-judged on that basis.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tin-Samuel-Being-black-Cole-Co-held-back.html

 

Sometimes, depends what's on.

 

You've pretty much saved me typing much!
They introduced quotas in American Football a few years ago, the quote does not say how many black managers there are in the league, just that one black candidate should be included in the interview process, after which it's the best man for the job. Following the introduction of quotas the number of black Head Coaches rose dramatically, thereby showing that good people were being excluded from the interview process.

 

I think the fact that the Daily Mail is being used to prove the point is telling. I'm not sure which is worse, the way it dismisses a young black man's opinion on Barrack Obama as irrelevant, the implication that we don't have black middle class or educated black people in Britain, or the cherry-picking of facts to make its point.

-It is correct, Paul Ince didn't have the pro-licence, but neither did current FA technical director Gareth Southgate during his managerial career (he gained it just as he was sacked).
-The Rooney Rule led to a 25% increase in black coaches, who weren't even getting interviewed previously
-He tries to claim that the shortfall, proportionate to black players across both sports, is the same at 16 coaches. This is massaging the figures. It represents a 89% shortfall in football compared with a 66% shortfall in Amercian Football, a shortfall in American Football is dropping exponentially whilst in football it is not improving
- The article cites two examples of players who haven't taken their pro-licence to make a sweeping point. It gives no evidnce as to how many black people have the pro-licence or any evidence as to how many of the 92 league club managers have their licence
- The article lists a number of black pro-licence coaches trying to make its point that they have employment, whilst ignoring the glaring obvious that none of them are managers

Sorry, this isn't a dig at you, but if you use the Daily Mail to form an understanding of the causes and consequences of racial inequality you are going to get a very biased, white-middle class conservative understanding of the problem.

 

Quotas. Read an interesting point today. If we are to consider quotas in an effort to eradicate ALL racism surely at least 9 of any england team should be white, to reflect society.

 

The Rooney Rule in america is racist.

Lets set up a scenario. Barnsley FC only have time to interview 5 candidates, I along with many others, including just one black guy who has never worked in his life and has no qualifiacations at all, apply for the job. He is automatically given an interview based SOLELY on his skin colour (racism) and I am refused an interview and therefore an opportunity to gain the job despite being a far better applicant than the black candidate PURELY because I'm white? Sorry but in my opinion racism is treating people differently based purely on their race and that is exactly what the rooney rule demands.

 

I've seen many articles mentioning this increase in black coaches, I've never seen any mentioining how many black coaches actually apply for the jobs these days compared to before.

Is it that they simply couldn't be arsed previously and now are because of their unfair advantage? Is it that maybe they are applying now solely because they know they are pretty much guarenteed an interview?

I've seen not one scrap of evidence to suggest that black people are being turned down for jobs in football based on their colour.

The programme made lots of claims without backing any up but at no point did it attempt to give any meaningful statistics to clear things up.

Without wishing to stereotype, black skin SOMETIMES indicates that the person is foreign, if a footballer is foreign then maybe they move back home after their playing career ends? Maybe this explains a lack of black managers, because they're all living abroad enjoying their retirement.

 

I think introducing the idea of quotas is ridiculous.

ALL discrimination should not be allowed even POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION is wrong IMO.

Favouring one individual because of their skin colour to full up quotas it stupid, it should go to whoever is the best man/woman for the job. It shouldn't be a case of 'oh we need 2 more black people here to meet our quota'.

It should just be down to their abilities, regardless of skin colour.

 

But that's not what a quota system does. It only guarantees someone an interview if they meet person specification and isn't instead of someone else. We have this system now in mainstream Britain for people with disabilities.

Quota is an unfortunate phrase to describe it, and I admit until I did equalities training through work i had a similar view. But positive discrimination (again unfortunate phrase) has been successful in diversifying many organisations who have benefited from that diversity

 

How are they measuring the 'benefit'?

 

Fair point, that's a subjective point, there is tons of literature about the benefits but not sure how much quantitative data there is.

 

I would also add that what I actually put is that it would have been interesting if the programme examined the parallels where quota systems have been applied inside and outside of sport to examine the impact. I wouldn't base a decision on the analysis of a BBC Three documentary! But I dont think there can be any argument that black people are not properly represented in football management, and Asian people are unrepresented in football full stop.

The American Football example also shows that black people were not getting interviews for jobs because once they started getting interviews they were proving to be often to be the best candidate.

 

How many of the black people who got american football coaching jobs after the rule change who didn't get one before the rule change had applied for jobs before the change?