Paul Ince Wants Rooney Rule

[Matty]

I always find it interesting that the loudest voices in these things seem to belong to people like Ince and Barnes, failed managers who are bitter about their lack of success and current unemployment, can't accept it's due to a lack of ability on their part, and so seek out another reason. When comparisons can be drawn between your reasoning and a crap Ali G "joke" then you're hardly on solid ground.

If there were a large number of highly qualified, well respected, black coaches/managers sitting on the unemployment pile then perhaps this argument might carry a little more weight, however as it is there doesn't seem to be. If you look at the current set of 92 League managers then the vast majority will be former players, with a growing number being from foreign shores, it stands to reason that the black coaches/managers unable to find employment would too, in the main, be former players, with a growing number being foreign. That being the case then a large number of these coaches should be known to your average football fan, surely then we should be able to come up with the names of more than a handful?

Football is a money driven business, today more so than ever, chairmen want financial stability, fans want on field success, neither care too much about how they achieve this. To suggest they are systematically ignoring candidates who, on paper, seem the best option to provide them with this success/stability based solely on the colour of their skin is just a concept I can't get behind. There's possibly more of an argument that, subconciously, those making the decisions "trust" or "identify" with the white candidates, but again do they do this to such a degree that a clearly stronger black candidate is overlooked? If the decision between 2 candidates is so close that skin colour, even subliminally, can be the deciding factor, then is it really such a shock that a white candidate gets the job instead? We're talking about a coin toss decision here, either candidate could be the better option. Is it racist in such a scenario not to employ the black candidate? Just because you "feel" that white candidate is the better fit, as an individual, doesn't mean the reason you "feel" this way is due to skin tone. If there had been 2 white candidates and you "felt" one was a better fit despite there being no tangible difference then this would be the same, yet there's no skin tone element in play, so why the feeling? It's just human nature, we make decisions with our gut and can't always quantify quite why we decided what we did. I refuse to believe there is overt racism at play here, where chairmen are basically saying "I'm not employing X as he's black". A rule which forces people to interview black candidates will do nothing to change subconcious racism and will only result in a "dumbing down"process by which black candidates won't have to be as highly qualified, or as talented to get to the interview stage. It's the same argument used against the FA's new idea to try and enforce a quota of homegrown players in the starting 11 of Ebglish club sides, there is less emphasis on quality and more on 2making up the numbers" and, as such, the quality of condidates will drop, which will lead to fewer black coaches/managers in roles, and will no doubt lead to messers Ince and Barnes claiming this actually strengthens their position that English football, at the highest level, is inherantly racist.

 

[dario2739]

I always find it interesting that the loudest voices in these things seem to belong to people like Ince and Barnes, failed managers who are bitter about their lack of success and current unemployment, can't accept it's due to a lack of ability on their part, and so seek out another reason. When comparisons can be drawn between your reasoning and a crap Ali G "joke" then you're hardly on solid ground.

If there were a large number of highly qualified, well respected, black coaches/managers sitting on the unemployment pile then perhaps this argument might carry a little more weight, however as it is there doesn't seem to be. If you look at the current set of 92 League managers then the vast majority will be former players, with a growing number being from foreign shores, it stands to reason that the black coaches/managers unable to find employment would too, in the main, be former players, with a growing number being foreign. That being the case then a large number of these coaches should be known to your average football fan, surely then we should be able to come up with the names of more than a handful?

Football is a money driven business, today more so than ever, chairmen want financial stability, fans want on field success, neither care too much about how they achieve this. To suggest they are systematically ignoring candidates who, on paper, seem the best option to provide them with this success/stability based solely on the colour of their skin is just a concept I can't get behind. There's possibly more of an argument that, subconciously, those making the decisions "trust" or "identify" with the white candidates, but again do they do this to such a degree that a clearly stronger black candidate is overlooked? If the decision between 2 candidates is so close that skin colour, even subliminally, can be the deciding factor, then is it really such a shock that a white candidate gets the job instead? We're talking about a coin toss decision here, either candidate could be the better option. Is it racist in such a scenario not to employ the black candidate? Just because you "feel" that white candidate is the better fit, as an individual, doesn't mean the reason you "feel" this way is due to skin tone. If there had been 2 white candidates and you "felt" one was a better fit despite there being no tangible difference then this would be the same, yet there's no skin tone element in play, so why the feeling? It's just human nature, we make decisions with our gut and can't always quantify quite why we decided what we did. I refuse to believe there is overt racism at play here, where chairmen are basically saying "I'm not employing X as he's black". A rule which forces people to interview black candidates will do nothing to change subconcious racism and will only result in a "dumbing down"process by which black candidates won't have to be as highly qualified, or as talented to get to the interview stage. It's the same argument used against the FA's new idea to try and enforce a quota of homegrown players in the starting 11 of Ebglish club sides, there is less emphasis on quality and more on 2making up the numbers" and, as such, the quality of condidates will drop, which will lead to fewer black coaches/managers in roles, and will no doubt lead to messers Ince and Barnes claiming this actually strengthens their position that English football, at the highest level, is inherantly racist.

Great post - spot on!
I couldn't care less about skin colour... it doesn't enter into it, it's wether your good at you job or not!
Personally i'm hoping Paddy V is our manager in a few years - but it's not... and won't be a token gesture, it'll be because he's bloody good at his job!

 

[Malty]

I always find it interesting that the loudest voices in these things seem to belong to people like Ince and Barnes, failed managers who are bitter about their lack of success and current unemployment, can't accept it's due to a lack of ability on their part, and so seek out another reason. When comparisons can be drawn between your reasoning and a crap Ali G "joke" then you're hardly on solid ground.

If there were a large number of highly qualified, well respected, black coaches/managers sitting on the unemployment pile then perhaps this argument might carry a little more weight, however as it is there doesn't seem to be. If you look at the current set of 92 League managers then the vast majority will be former players, with a growing number being from foreign shores, it stands to reason that the black coaches/managers unable to find employment would too, in the main, be former players, with a growing number being foreign. That being the case then a large number of these coaches should be known to your average football fan, surely then we should be able to come up with the names of more than a handful?

Football is a money driven business, today more so than ever, chairmen want financial stability, fans want on field success, neither care too much about how they achieve this. To suggest they are systematically ignoring candidates who, on paper, seem the best option to provide them with this success/stability based solely on the colour of their skin is just a concept I can't get behind. There's possibly more of an argument that, subconciously, those making the decisions "trust" or "identify" with the white candidates, but again do they do this to such a degree that a clearly stronger black candidate is overlooked? If the decision between 2 candidates is so close that skin colour, even subliminally, can be the deciding factor, then is it really such a shock that a white candidate gets the job instead? We're talking about a coin toss decision here, either candidate could be the better option. Is it racist in such a scenario not to employ the black candidate? Just because you "feel" that white candidate is the better fit, as an individual, doesn't mean the reason you "feel" this way is due to skin tone. If there had been 2 white candidates and you "felt" one was a better fit despite there being no tangible difference then this would be the same, yet there's no skin tone element in play, so why the feeling? It's just human nature, we make decisions with our gut and can't always quantify quite why we decided what we did. I refuse to believe there is overt racism at play here, where chairmen are basically saying "I'm not employing X as he's black". A rule which forces people to interview black candidates will do nothing to change subconcious racism and will only result in a "dumbing down"process by which black candidates won't have to be as highly qualified, or as talented to get to the interview stage. It's the same argument used against the FA's new idea to try and enforce a quota of homegrown players in the starting 11 of Ebglish club sides, there is less emphasis on quality and more on 2making up the numbers" and, as such, the quality of condidates will drop, which will lead to fewer black coaches/managers in roles, and will no doubt lead to messers Ince and Barnes claiming this actually strengthens their position that English football, at the highest level, is inherantly racist.

Agenda driven for sure.

 

[Bill]

sorry to piss on his chips but i dont even see his colour, or anyones for that matter. i know some countries have a problem with race but not here. same as a player, if they are good enough they play, black white or any colour they get a game. sorry Ince can't see this as a problem. i think the other thing is there must be fewer and fewer players of any colour taking their pro licence, so many go it to media or put their feet up having earned zillions whilst playing. wasn't the case years ago but we had less black/foriegn players to move into managment.

 

[whp.blue]

I wonder what Ince has to say about the sus laws

statistically more street crimes and burglaries in London are committed by Black youths so He should back police stopping young black lads in London bet he doesn't though

statistics are a funny thing

 

[ell]

Did a decent job at MK Dons, got given a PL job with Blackburn, did shite and has done shite ever since. Nothing to do with his skin colour, more the fact hes a tosser and a shit manager to boot.

 

[cibaman]

If racism is a reason more black managers aren't in the game I don't see the Rooney rule as changing anything in that regard.

It depends whether it's overt racism or it's subconscious racism. Perfectly decent people can have all sorts of unconscious attitudes or prejudices. For example, they've done plenty of studies to show that someone with an English-sounding name is far more likely to be offered an interview than the identical candidate with an African-sounding name, even when it's made clear that they were born and educated in the UK (men are also more likely to be offered an interview than women too). Are that many hiring managers secret admirers of Hitler, or do they simply act according to prejudices they have and probably aren't even aware of? The reason Rooney's rule works is precisely because the people hiring aren't overtly racist.

Anyway, a quick prediction. The first black manager to lift the Premier League trophy: Patrick Vieira with us. The second? Vincent Kompany with us.

I believe they found in the US that when the rule came in black coaches were interviewed to satisfy the rule, but initially didnt get the job. But those that had been interviewed became better in interview situations and eventually did get a job. The initial rejection didnt discourage them to the extent that it did before the rule was brought in. To some extent the rule was more about black coaches not being deterred too easily, using racism as an excuse for not persevering with a process that often involves initial rejection.

I think the problem in football would be that the vast majority of managerial appointments are not filled following interviews and that the process is so secretive. How would the Rooney Rule have been applied in the case of City's last two managerial appointments? In the US the process of appointing head coaches is more open, possibly because they don't poach other clubs' head coaches so much. They're more likely to appoint an assistant head coach from another club and its expected that assistant head coaches will be interviewed for vacancies at other clubs.

 

[Cellarite]

I'm not sure why Ince would want to introduce a rule that lets balding, overweight players to kick out at other players. The game will surely suffer but it'd help me at 5-a-side.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

At the end of the day Skin colour should neither hold you back or positively push you ahead, We are all human beings and should be judged on a level playing field. It would be an insult not to be !!

But if there's evidence that one group isn't being judged on a level playing field, what should we do about it?

Ok were is the evidence ?? Name one black manager with a proven track record who should have got an interview for The City job when Mancini's time was up ?? Or maybe our club identified the man best suited for the job and went out and got him irrespective of skin colour or nationality.

Someone who's incapable of understanding the purpose of the "If" clause to explore the hypothetical.

But pointing to the Man City job is ridiculous, when the argument is that black coaches aren't getting the opportunities even in the lower leagues. If they're not getting the opportunities in the lower leagues, there's obviously no chance that there'll be any black managers qualified for the top jobs, because with very few exceptions, you can't just walk into a job like that. As for the evidence, there's mountains of evidence that equally-qualified black people suffer discrimination when it comes to hiring. It would be naive to think that football is any different from the wider society in this respect.

So I'll ask it again, if there was evidence that skin colour was resulting in some people not being judged on a level playing field, what would you do about it?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

If there were a large number of highly qualified, well respected, black coaches/managers sitting on the unemployment pile then perhaps this argument might carry a little more weight, however as it is there doesn't seem to be.

One thing that must be frustrating for aspiring black coaches is the way that some of the black managers who have had success have then gone on to basically throw their careers away. Ruud Gullet became the manager of Chelsea and finished 6th in his first season, winning the FA Cup, and then led them to 2nd the next year. Then he had a tough time at Newcastle and just left management for 4 years. Then he worked in Holland, the USA and finally Russia, with huge gaps between each. It seems that there was obviously a talented manager somewhere in there, and yet he simply didn't seem to give a shit. Similarly Frank Rijkaard. Won 2 La Ligas and the Champions League with Barcelona. He was basically the best manager in Europe at that time, so what did he do with that? He went to manage in Turkey for a club that basically sacked him because he failed to win the league at his first attempt. Then he went to manage Saudi Arabia when he no doubt could've had his pick of jobs in Europe and currently he works in a boarding school ffs. It's a long way down for a man that was considered the best manager in Europe less than 10 years ago.

Hell, maybe this racism is worse that we thought and even a Champions League winner isn't getting considered for jobs. But I can't imagine that's the case.