The Rooney Rule

[Koke]

Some of you are gonna love this.

Basically, in NFL there is a rule called The Rooney Rule. It was named after Dan Rooney - he is the owner of Pittsburgh Steelers and he also the chairman of the league's diversity committee.

Now, this is basically a policy enforced by the NFL that forces teams to interview at least one minority candidate for any coaching vacancy. If said teams do not interview at least one minority candidate they will subsequently get fined or punished one way or another. So black coaches/managers are able to get an interview by default and don't have to work hard for it as it's basically "given" to them on a plate. It's a bit fucking patronising if you ask me. I wouldn't want to work under somebody who hired me because they had to.

If we cut the crap and go straight to the point, THIS is positive discrimination gone absolute mad. Imagine if we had to interview cunts like Paul Ince and Chris Kamara everytime we needed a manager.

This Rooney Rule was implemented back in 2003, but this is the first time I come across this.

What people like Dan Rooney doesn't realize is that rather than trying to create jobs for the minority and closing the gap, he is in fact alienating blacks and whites due to resentment he's creating. The ironic thing about all of this is of course that most black people/coaches don't like that they are being interviewed under this technicality either.

I'm just surprised I haven't come across this rule before. Imagine the uproar it would create if someone like Scudamore decided to introduce that in our game.

[davieG]

Imagine how you'd feel if you were a damned good black coach but everyone would thought you're only getting an interview because of this rule. Likewise those selecting could well be thinking huh our token black coach I shan't be choosing him.

Don't Labour have a similar rule for women for their MP candidate selection system?

[StanSP]

Too damn right about the patronising aspect.

[Koke]

I do wonder how the Americans actually feel about this rule. It's been in place for 6 years now, and I'm not entirely sure if it has actually increased the number of minority coaches.

In 2003, the NFL fined the Detroit Lions $200,000 for failure to interview minority candidates for the team's vacant head coaching job. After Marty Mornhinweg was fired, the Lions immediately hired former San Francisco 49ers head coach Steve Mariucci to replace him without interviewing any other candidates. The Lions claimed they attempted to interview other candidates but that the minority candidates withdrew from interviews, believing Mariucci's hiring was inevitable.

[Shrenchel]

If there is not actually a quota of employees, just people given an interview, I can't really see it's a big problem.

Don't really know enough about NFL to comment but if it's anything like English football where black managers are shockingly scarce in comparison to the number of black players, then it's clear somewhere along the line there are social factors which are preventing more breaking through. Positive discrimination is always a quick and pretty ineffective attempt to solve these problems, however, although I think its far from being the main factor, the preconceived prejudices of chairman may play a part in some cases and I guess something like this can part contribute to changing that.

[Jordan]

I do wonder how the Americans actually feel about this rule. It's been in place for 6 years now, and I'm not entirely sure if it has actually increased the number of minority coaches.

The percentage of black head coaches has tripled since the "Rooney Rule" was implemented, and the number of black assistant coaches has also increased. It's unclear whether or not this is primarily the result of the rule, changing attitudes in the league, or the increasing number of black former players.

I support the Rooney Rule. First, it doesn't handcuff teams; all they are required to do is interview a minority candidate. Also, the NFL was doing a truly abysmal job of hiring black head coaches before the rule. It's absolutely ridiculous that in 2002, there were only two black head coaches in a league where the majority of the players are black. Say what you will about patronization, but just think about it: TWO black head coaches out of 32 teams in a league where 70% of the players are black. There is definitely a prevalent stereotype in sports--and American football is no different--that black players don't do the "thinking" part of the game as well as white players (black players are always athletic, if undisciplined, while white players are gritty and coachable). The disparity in the numbers above surely had something to do with that stereotype.

Furthermore, I feel the NFL is obligated to keep its coaching positions open to as many former players as possible. Coaches, assistants, general managers etc. don't have to be former players, but it's unfair that a lot of those being overlooked for coaching jobs for so long were black former players that gave years of dedicated service to the league. American football is a brutal sport. Many players ruin their health for the sake of their NFL careers. Post-retirement pension for players is always a major issue for the NFL Players Association (the union) when bargaining with the league. While modern players get better post-retirement benefits than those a generation or two ago, any player that has the ability and desire to enter coaching should be able to continue his football career in coaching if he is qualified to do so. How could it be fair that racial factors force 70% of players with NFL experience to have nearly 0% chance of landing a coaching job? Just the assurance alone that the end of one's playing career doesn't necessarily mean the end of one's football life is at the least a respectful gesture for the league to give its players.

BTW, there's been some chatter around the league that the competition committee is considering expanding the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview at least one minority candidate for general manager positions as well, and the NCAA is also considering doing something similar for college football (where black coaches are rare like the pre-2002 NFL). But as PC as the UK can be, I can't see the FA, Premier League or Football League trying this or anything similar because your player pool is much more heterogeneous and international, even though there's something fishy about the dearth of black managers.

[Ultra]

The percentage of black head coaches has tripled since the "Rooney Rule" was implemented, and the number of black assistant coaches has also increased. It's unclear whether or not this is primarily the result of the rule, changing attitudes in the league, or the increasing number of black former players.

I support the Rooney Rule. First, it doesn't handcuff teams; all they are required to do is interview a minority candidate. Also, the NFL was doing a truly abysmal job of hiring black head coaches before the rule. It's absolutely ridiculous that in 2002, there were only two black head coaches in a league where the majority of the players are black. Say what you will about patronization, but just think about it: TWO black head coaches out of 32 teams in a league where 70% of the players are black. There is definitely a prevalent stereotype in sports--and American football is no different--that black players don't do the "thinking" part of the game as well as white players (black players are always athletic, if undisciplined, while white players are gritty and coachable). The disparity in the numbers above surely had something to do with that stereotype.

Furthermore, I feel the NFL is obligated to keep its coaching positions open to as many former players as possible. Coaches, assistants, general managers etc. don't have to be former players, but it's unfair that a lot of those being overlooked for coaching jobs for so long were black former players that gave years of dedicated service to the league. American football is a brutal sport. Many players ruin their health for the sake of their NFL careers. Post-retirement pension for players is always a major issue for the NFL Players Association (the union) when bargaining with the league. While modern players get better post-retirement benefits than those a generation or two ago, any player that has the ability and desire to enter coaching should be able to continue his football career in coaching if he is qualified to do so. How could it be fair that racial factors force 70% of players with NFL experience to have nearly 0% chance of landing a coaching job? Just the assurance alone that the end of one's playing career doesn't necessarily mean the end of one's football life is at the least a respectful gesture for the league to give its players.

BTW, there's been some chatter around the league that the competition committee is considering expanding the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview at least one minority candidate for general manager positions as well, and the NCAA is also considering doing something similar for college football (where black coaches are rare like the pre-2002 NFL). But as PC as the UK can be, I can't see the FA, Premier League or Football League trying this or anything similar because your player pool is much more heterogeneous and international, even though there's something fishy about the dearth of black managers.

This.

[Koke]

The percentage of black head coaches has tripled since the "Rooney Rule" was implemented, and the number of black assistant coaches has also increased. It's unclear whether or not this is primarily the result of the rule, changing attitudes in the league, or the increasing number of black former players.

I support the Rooney Rule. First, it doesn't handcuff teams; all they are required to do is interview a minority candidate. Also, the NFL was doing a truly abysmal job of hiring black head coaches before the rule. It's absolutely ridiculous that in 2002, there were only two black head coaches in a league where the majority of the players are black. Say what you will about patronization, but just think about it: TWO black head coaches out of 32 teams in a league where 70% of the players are black. There is definitely a prevalent stereotype in sports--and American football is no different--that black players don't do the "thinking" part of the game as well as white players (black players are always athletic, if undisciplined, while white players are gritty and coachable). The disparity in the numbers above surely had something to do with that stereotype.

Furthermore, I feel the NFL is obligated to keep its coaching positions open to as many former players as possible. Coaches, assistants, general managers etc. don't have to be former players, but it's unfair that a lot of those being overlooked for coaching jobs for so long were black former players that gave years of dedicated service to the league. American football is a brutal sport. Many players ruin their health for the sake of their NFL careers. Post-retirement pension for players is always a major issue for the NFL Players Association (the union) when bargaining with the league. While modern players get better post-retirement benefits than those a generation or two ago, any player that has the ability and desire to enter coaching should be able to continue his football career in coaching if he is qualified to do so. How could it be fair that racial factors force 70% of players with NFL experience to have nearly 0% chance of landing a coaching job? Just the assurance alone that the end of one's playing career doesn't necessarily mean the end of one's football life is at the least a respectful gesture for the league to give its players.

BTW, there's been some chatter around the league that the competition committee is considering expanding the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview at least one minority candidate for general manager positions as well, and the NCAA is also considering doing something similar for college football (where black coaches are rare like the pre-2002 NFL).

Good summary.

But Jordan, I have a few issues with this. Firstly, this rule is easy to go around. If a team really wants a coach who happens to be white, they can still get him, but can go out and "interview" a black candidate just to fulfil the Rooney Rule. Interviewing one or five black coaches will do absolutely nothing. It's like us interviewing Paul Ince just because we have to, but eventually we will hire Nigel Pearson because that's the guy we actually want.

Secondly, 70% of the NFL players are black, which means that more white players fail to make the grade, and turn to coaching earlier. And hence, are more likely to be successful. I read that Josh McDaniels and Raheem Morris have been coaching at a very high level for a decade and they are only 33 and 32 respectively - the former is white and the latter is black. That tells me that the the reason for a low percentage of black coaches is because most of them are playing and once they retire they don't have the head start that Josh McDaniels [for example] had.

Maybe I'm rambling out of my backside, I don't know. But I really think this Rooney Rule as totally meaningless. As an ethnic minority myself, I do see this rule as patronising.

But as PC as the UK can be, I can't see the FA, Premier League or Football League trying this or anything similar because your player pool is much more heterogeneous and international, even though there's something fishy about the dearth of black managers.

The reason for that is because there are a lot more white players than black players in football, nothing fishy about it at all. The managers in the game right now are players who used to play 10, 15 maybe 20 years ago. And back then we didn't have anywhere near the amount of black players we have now. 15 years down the line, we may see a decent amount of black players turning into managers. In fact, we may see our very own Chris Powell becoming a manager soon.

[Guest Bilo]

I've always found the idea of positive discrimination to be very patronising.The suggestion seems to be that black coaches are not as good as white coaches, so therefore the authorities feel the need to give them the equivalent of stabilisers on a bicycle by forcing clubs to give them interviews. It's actually quite insulting to assume that black coaches need this helping hand, to the coaches themselves and the clubs that employ black players without discrimination. Discrimination can therefore never be 'positive'. On this side of the pond, it is true that there aren't many black coaches. There could be a number of reasons for this, but institutionalised racism in a sport where more than 20% of players are black seems the least likely. Any sniff of racism by fans, individuals or teams is widely (and rightly) condemned. Can you see Ron Atkinson getting another job in football any time soon after his comments about Desailly? Thought not. Racism in football has been tackled effectively by the majority of clubs and players in England, and at any rate anti-discrimination laws introduced by successive governments in the past few years would quickly undermine any racist selection policies.

[Koke]

I agree Bilo. And it would never work here anyway even if the ratio of black and white players were exactly the same as the NFL. Nothing to do with institutional racism our game - For every Frank Rijkaard there is a Paul Ince, and for every Martin O'Neill there is a Peter Taylor.

[the zorro]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33015657

 

The Football League plan on implementing its own version of the 'Rooney Rule'.

 

Why?

 

You're entitled to an interview because of the colour of your skin?

 

You get a job on merit, not on race.

 

I don't care what colour our manager is, as long as he does a decent job.

 

And what if a club knows who they want, but has to interview an applicant from an ethnic minority, just to meet quotas? It's a waste of everybodys time.

 

Powell and Hasselbaink, good managers. Barnes and Ince, shit managers.

 

Ferguson and Mourinho, good managers. Gregory and Dowie, shit managers.

 

Skin colour is completely irrelevant.

 

This is actually making the Football League look racist.

[Jordan]

"Rooney Rule raises its ugly head again"

Ugly? Again? How has the Rooney Rule been ugly in any way, and why should a similar rule in the Football League be ugly?

All anyone gets out of this is an interview--the interviewee still has to get the job "on merit."

Not giving minority coach hopefuls interviews is more racist than merely giving someone a shot, which he can make or miss just like any other applicant for a coaching job.

[Kitchandro]

I don't know what is such a big deal about black managers in the game. Why do we need more?

 

They can make clubs out to be racist all they like but the fact it's far more of an issue that managers can't get as many jobs early in their career if they weren't top players.

 

 

"Rooney Rule raises its ugly head again"
Ugly? Again? How has the Rooney Rule been ugly in any way, and why should a similar rule in the Football League be ugly?

All anyone gets out of this is an interview--the interviewee still has to get the job "on merit."

Not giving minority coach hopefuls interviews is more racist than merely giving someone a shot, which he can make or miss just like any other applicant for a coaching job.

 

Why should they be given a shot? What makes them qualified to even have an interview?

 

Clubs don't interview every fvcker who wants a job, they narrow it down to a few and they interview them.

 

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a moron.

[the zorro]

"Rooney Rule raises its ugly head again"

Ugly? Again? How has the Rooney Rule been ugly in any way, and why should a similar rule in the Football League be ugly?

All anyone gets out of this is an interview--the interviewee still has to get the job "on merit."

Not giving minority coach hopefuls interviews is more racist than merely giving someone a shot, which he can make or miss just like any other applicant for a coaching job.

 

If a coach is good enough, he'll get an interview regardless of his skin colour. Can't you see that? It's ridiculous.

 

Where do you draw the line? Should women, homosexuals and disabled people all be interviewed too?

 

I state those 3 examples as they all face prejudice, not because they don't deserve to work in any job as long as they are good enough.

[Danno]

25% of players in the premier league are black yet we only have 2 black managers, maybe 3 if Keith Curle has a job. Tells me that something is going wrong there. We have nothing to lose from it, stop crying you pathetic gimps.

[the zorro]

25% of players in the premier league are black yet we only have 2 black managers, maybe 3 if Keith Curle has a job. Tells me that something is going wrong there. We have nothing to lose from it, stop crying you pathetic gimps.

 

Apart from the guy who is from an ethnic minority, with no chance of getting the job, but there to make up the numbers.

 

Literally a token black guy.

[Danno]

Apart from the guy who is from an ethnic minority, with no chance of getting the job, but there to make up the numbers.

Literally a token black guy.

They get the interview, they won't get the job if they aren't good enough. Get over it.

[the zorro]

They get the interview, they won't get the job if they aren't good enough. Get over it.

 

Point proven then!

[RowlattsFox]

What has the current percentage of black premier league footballers got to do with anything?

The only stat that matters is how many retired black footballers who have their badges are not getting jobs?

[Jimothy]

25% of players in the premier league are black yet we only have 2 black managers, maybe 3 if Keith Curle has a job. Tells me that something is going wrong there. We have nothing to lose from it, stop crying you pathetic gimps.

Tells you that you probably shouldn't use the percentage of current black players as a comparison of how many managers there are today. Maybe look at the percentage of premier league players now retired that are black. Also you hear a lot from the likes of Jason Roberts, Dion Dublin etc regarding the lack of black managers, well ask Jason Roberts how many managers jobs he's applied for. The answer? None. He's moans about the situation, but he's one of a long line of black former players who for all we know may have never applied for a managers role. Until we know how many black people are applying and missing out on these jobs there's no point in a quota because we might be forcing clubs to do something impossible and interview an invisible man. It's the same as this call for more women in parliament and specifically in cabinet roles. No we don't need more women in government, we need to best people in government whoever they are.

[Soar Fox]

They get the interview, they won't get the job if they aren't good enough. Get over it.

So they are only getting an interview because of their skin colour then? Surely that's racist.

[Danno]

So they are only getting an interview because of their skin colour then? Surely that's racist.

Because they applied probably.

[bovril]

We should have one for Gay managers. Could be called the 'Clooney' rule, as in Rosemary.

[m4DD0gg]

The colour of your skin should not matter it depends how good you are, same as any profession.

[RowlattsFox]

What if no black managers apply for a job? Do they just approach any random black man? Paul ince is going to be busy attending interviews.