Fulham adopt 'Rooney Rule'

[mike_corkcity12]

English Football League clubs have approved proposals to introduce a 'Rooney Rule' for academy jobs in a bid to increase the number of black and ethnic minority (BME) coaches.

Clubs must now include at least one suitably qualified BME candidate on the interview shortlist if such an application is received.

In addition, 10 clubs have voluntarily extended these to first-team roles.

There are currently just three BME managers among the 72 EFL clubs.

They are Brighton's Chris Hughton, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink of QPR and Keith Curle, boss of League Two side Carlisle United.

Departing EFL chairman Greg Clarke cited the NFL's Rooney Rule as an inspiration behind the plans.

"It is absolutely essential that EFL clubs continue to reflect the communities in which they are based," he said.

"It is clear to us that we currently have an under-representation of BME managers and coaches at club level and it is therefore the right time to take proportionate action to ensure the best talent, from all backgrounds, is given a fair opportunity to enter and progress through the system.

"I believe this is an important moment for sport in this country and I'm very proud that it is our clubs that are leading the way. They have done the right thing and deserve considerable credit."

The Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview at least one black or ethnic minority candidate for head coaching and senior football operation opportunities that become available.

Keith Curle
Keith Curle said in 2014 that a 'Rooney rule' would not work in English football
Mandatory academy code

Clubs will be required to advertise any position within their academy that requires the individual to hold a Uefa A or Uefa B coaching badge on the club's website and the EFL website for a minimum of seven days.
Clubs must include at least one suitably qualified BME candidate (where an application has been received) on the interview shortlist for that position.
Clubs must appoint the successful candidate on the basis of merit alone.
Clubs must provide details of the recruitment process to the EFL, including the number of BME applicants and the number of BME candidates interviewed.
Clubs will be permitted to fill a position by promoting an internal candidate (from a position requiring a Uefa A or B coaching badge only) without applying the above process. However, the position vacated by that individual must be filled in accordance with the new regulations.
Voluntary first-team code

Ten of the 72 clubs have volunteered to pilot a similar scheme in their first-team recruitment process during 2016-17.

Those teams are: Birmingham City, Fulham, Huddersfield Town and Wolves, Chesterfield, Coventry City, Millwall, Peterborough United, Accrington Stanley and Carlisle United.

During the season, clubs will be expected to interview one or more BME candidate for any first-team managerial/coaching role (where an application has been received) in instances where they run a full recruitment process.

During the close season, clubs will be expected to run a full recruitment process for any first-team managerial/coaching role during which they must interview one or more BME candidates (where an application has been received).

Haven't seen this mentioned yet.

[love4ffc]

Don't get why this is called the "Rooney rule". 

[DukeTyrion]

Don't get why this is called the "Rooney rule".

Perhaps he had a similar selection process when he used to hire his prostitutes.  :028:

[Oakeshott]

Not Wayne, but Dan, owner of an American team who introduced the rule as a way of trying to improve the chances of non whites.

[fulhamben]

What happens if none that meet that criteria actually apply for a job?

[Fulham76]

What happens if none that meet that criteria actually apply for a job?

That club will be labelled racist, simple!

[Mitch]

What happens if none that meet that criteria actually apply for a job?

Then you don't interview anyone. The Rooney rule is a bit much if you ask me, but this seems a very smart idea. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys if the first team manager was an eight legged robot from Mars if it got us promoted.

[gang]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

[epsomraver]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

0001.jpeg

[Mitch]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

That's always been my thoughts on the Rooney rule, but this one seems a bit more sensible at least.

[dannyboi-ffc]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

Spot on!

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

Well I work for TfL and they use reverse discrimination for literally every job. Oh wait, they can't call it that because that's illegal, they call it "positive action". Now, being a white man who like the ladies, I effectively don't stand a chance. Considering some of the "BME" managers we have can barely spell their names correctly, it's frustrating.
What should happen is "blind recruiting". The whole process is based on what's infront of you and not what you look like. At no point does the recruiter see you. So, unless you have a particularly strong accent, no one will know if you're black/white/martian and it really will be best man for the job.

[Beamer]

Well I work for TfL and they use reverse discrimination for literally every job. Oh wait, they can't call it that because that's illegal, they call it "positive action". Now, being a white man who like the ladies, I effectively don't stand a chance. Considering some of the "BME" managers we have can barely spell their names correctly, it's frustrating.
What should happen is "blind recruiting". The whole process is based on what's infront of you and not what you look like. At no point does the recruiter see you. So, unless you have a particularly strong accent, no one will know if you're black/white/martian and it really will be best man for the job.

Think they use that already in the US and that's how they got a rastafarian head of the KKK.

[Blanco]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

:plus one:

[OxfordWhite]

Positive discrimination, in my opinion, is a necessary move to correct for issues in society that should not exist. Scandinavian countries employ them with great effect when it comes to women in work. For a more detailed opinion this paper is worth a read http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417876?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

[Aldo]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

The best candidate should still get the job. Just because a BME candidate gets an interview, it doesn't mean he will automatically get the job, but if he interviews well enough and proves himself to be the best candidate then he should get the job anyway!

[OxfordWhite]

I find so called positive discrimination offensive, I have always believed that the best candidate should be offered the job regardless of race, colour, creed or sex but rules to impose this are counter productive.

The best candidate should still get the job. Just because a BME candidate gets an interview, it doesn't mean he will automatically get the job, but if he interviews well enough and proves himself to be the best candidate then he should get the job anyway!

:plus one:

[OxfordWhite]

Positive discrimination, in my opinion, is a necessary move to correct for issues in society that should not exist. Scandinavian countries employ them with great effect when it comes to women in work. For a more detailed opinion this paper is worth a read http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417876?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

So if the "issue that should not exist" (query who's the arbiter of that) is there aren't many good black managers, is the remedy for that to give job opportunities to poor black managers ahead of better white candidates? No surely the correct approach is to look at the cause of that

I mean I am assuming that everyone here agrees that everyone, regardless of race, should have the same opportunities.

There are a two major issues at play:

1. Black candidates in the workplace are less likely to get a job INTERVIEW due to racism (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbacks OR http://qz.com/357445/black-harvard-graduates-have-the-same-shot-at-a-job-call-back-as-white-state-college-grads/) - this helps to correct for this arbitrary factor

2. This is not an "either/or". Yes, the root needs looking at, but that is a massive societal change that will not come soon enough for current black managers/coaches.

[Logicalman]

Seems a little weird to me.

How do they KNOW the candidate is BME from the application alone? Do they require a photograph, or is there some other EU form now required when applying for a job, so that some candidates can be 'better assessed' other than just the details on their cv?

Any appointment should be solely on the basis of ability, shouldn't it. Positive discrimination is still discrimination, isn't it?

[OxfordWhite]

Positive discrimination, in my opinion, is a necessary move to correct for issues in society that should not exist. Scandinavian countries employ them with great effect when it comes to women in work. For a more detailed opinion this paper is worth a read http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417876?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

So if the "issue that should not exist" (query who's the arbiter of that) is there aren't many good black managers, is the remedy for that to give job opportunities to poor black managers ahead of better white candidates? No surely the correct approach is to look at the cause of that

I mean I am assuming that everyone here agrees that everyone, regardless of race, should have the same opportunities.

There are a two major issues at play:

1. Black candidates in the workplace are less likely to get a job INTERVIEW due to racism (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/jobs-search-hiring-racial-discrimination-resume-whitening-callbacks OR http://qz.com/357445/black-harvard-graduates-have-the-same-shot-at-a-job-call-back-as-white-state-college-grads/) - this helps to correct for this arbitrary factor

2. This is not an "either/or". Yes, the root needs looking at, but that is a massive societal change that will not come soon enough for current black managers/coaches.

Ok so someone somewhere studying some industry sector has found evidence of racism in recruitment processes.

It doesn't follow that racism is present in manager recruitment in UK football.

The only evidence of racism in that context seems to be the proportion of black managers doesn't reflect the proportion of black players. To me that just seems an inevitable consequence of that fact most managers are ex-players, and most of our current managers had their playing careers 40+ years ago when there were far less black players, in other words, there's an inevitable time lag.

Of course there could be other explanations. Perhaps black players at the end of their careers are less likely to feel taking their coaching badges is worthwhile, eg, because they've not as many black managers as role models. But in that case money and effort would be better spent, eg, advertising the benefits of coaching badges to older black players.

Even if the explanation is racism among football clubs' senior management, I hardly feel club directors' political views are going to be changed by the Rooney Rule.

And it is all "either or" because the FA, clubs and the other bodies involved in this all have finite budgets, so money spent on this means money isn't spent on some other anti-racism initiative or some kids' pitch isn't built somewhere.

This doesn't exactly cost too much money - they think out and announce the policy and the media do the marketing of it for them.

It also isn't "someone, somewhere", we are talking top Oxbridge, Harvard, etc. academics. There is no real reason to assume it would not extend to football - in fact it perhaps would even be WORSE in football due to the fact racism has, for a long period, been part and parcel of the game, even more so than the level of racism in society as a whole.

The racism also is not as obvious/explicit as you are making out, it is an unconscious bias issue (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/unconscious-race-bias-at-work-i-know-have-taken-the-test).

I can't see any decent argument against the rule, and it will HELP there be black role models for future generations of players.