Weekly Why: Premier League, English Football and the Demand for the Rooney Rule
Welcome to Bleacher Report's Weekly Why, a place where we discuss world football's biggest questions that may go neglected and/or avoided. Ranging from the jovial to the melancholic, no subject matter is deemed off-limits.
Why Aren't There More Managers of Colour?
Over a year ago, Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, when asked in a press conference about the Rooney Rule, told reporters, per BBC Sport: "There is no racism in football. If you are good, you are good. If you are good, you get the job. If you are good, you prove you deserve the job; and football is not stupid to close doors to top people, so if you are top, you are top."
I had an opportunity to broach the subject immediately following the Portuguese coach's comments, but passed, as many were investigating Mourinho's words for clicks more than legitimate conversation.
When Chris Ramsey and Chris Powell were sacked—by Queens Park Rangers and Huddersfield Town respectively—a fortnight ago, another chance arrived that I didn't immediately take, for much the same reason as last October, but I'm not sure I can hold off any longer.
For those not familiar with American football, the Rooney Rule—named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney—was installed in 2003 and prescribes each National Football League (NFL) team, during their search for either a head coach or general manager, must interview at least one ethnic minority before making their hire.
Before the Rooney Rule was implemented, the NFL, which began in 1920, had 11 hires of seven minority head coaches. Since 2003 (interim coaches excluded), NFL clubs have employed 16 minority head coaches—with 13 different candidates—six of which are currently employed.
The rule is not, as some would have you believe, a quota.
In an English context, no footballing enterprise would be mandated to hire a black, Asian or minority ethnic (**BAME) manager—just required to interview a minority applicant during their search. Essentially opening doors to viable candidates who've been historically excluded/overlooked during the hiring process.
I was taught, and we like to assume, football is a meritocracy—that the best player plays and the best manager manages—but I'm not naive enough to believe that.
Jobs are sometimes appointed on merit, but they're often a combination of merit and relationship. If a manager with roots in the game fosters relationships with a chairman or his advisers, hirings can be made based on personal familiarity without exploring lesser-known names.
As of 18 November 2015, five managers in England's top-four divisions—Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Keith Curle, Chris Hughton, Ricardo Moniz and David Wagner—are from a BAME background. Of the 92 potential appointments available in English managerial ranks, that equals just over five percent.
Those against the rule's implementation would posit a population argument. They would tell you 87 percent of the United Kingdom is white, so it somehow makes sense that 95 percent of the managers aren't BAME.
It doesn't hold water.
Firstly, England imports managers like no other country. There are 21 foreign managers from 91 filled positions (Fulham is currently vacant). Furthermore, 47 of England's football's managers have been in charge at their respective clubs for less than one year. The turnover of coaches is frequent, rampant and largely uninhibited.
So with the wealth of foreign managers being hired, and the insane upheaval shown in the job market, how is it that BAME coaches hold such a diminutive percentage of the coaching positions when they comprise a strong portion of the playing workforce?
The answer is twofold.
Establishing a vibrant, accessible core of minority candidates to choose from is the first half.
If BAME managers aren't applying for positions because they feel there's no point, or don't have the opportunity to interview because of their lack of relationships, the disparity will continue.
According to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports (TIDES), 71.4 percent of NFL players are minorities, so a larger pool of prospective, qualified candidates exists when compared to English football.
In England, the number of playing minorities is understood to be around 30 percent. Many come from outside the United Kingdom but—as seen with Hasselbaink at Burton Albion—have the wherewithal to succeed if given chances.
The second half is addressing institutionalised discrimination.
Were racism nonexistent in our society as a whole, discrimination not existing in football might be plausible. Unfortunately, no person of sane mind can assert—much less prove—society isn't racist or at least biased against those with darker skin. Therefore, to assume one of Earth's largest entities (football) is unblemished seems patently insane.
Some view the Rooney Rule, though, as a form of reverse racism. That including BAME candidates into the pool of prospective applicants destroys whatever trumped-up notions of freedom we all seem to grasp when change is lurking.
I disrespectfully disagree with the sentiment.
By the numbers and faces on the pitch/touchline, it seems BAME players are more than capable of playing, but less than premium options for chairmen to steward their clubs. There's been enough time for owners to properly explore avenues of untapped managerial talent. They appear in need of a kickstart.
It might be those already in charge, benefiting from the status quo, would rather not see change; but if the Rooney Rule breeds more qualified BAME applicants and fosters a sense of inclusivity—which is distinctly lacking—in no way could it impede competition, rather it would be enhanced.
Not to equate the struggles, but men (in general) are better off than women. Straight people (in general) are better off than those in LGBT communities. Similarly, especially when considering western society, white people (in general) enjoy benefits people of colour don't.
In various aspects, society has collectively realised these biases and attempted to rectify them. The Rooney Rule would be another initiative in that vain—with it hopefully becoming antiquated as more BAME managers fill the ever-changing ranks.
If we won't accept the facts of life in 2015, however, change can never get off the ground—provided you're even interested in addressing the issue?
And that's a question I can't pretend to answer for you.
Last Weekly: Premier League, Substitution Rules and the Importance of Change | Why Aren't More Players Allowed to Play?
**The fact there's an accepted acronym makes my stomach hurt.
It's a necessary device, but let's be clear: I don't identify with another person, much less whole minority groups, as if a monolith, based solely on the fact we both aren't white. Case in point, there are black men (a group in which I'll place myself) who suggest the Rooney Rule in English football is unnecessary.
I'd like to believe this particular nuance requires no footnote but, alas, here it rests.
.jpg?w=600 "🚨 Giants Picking 5th and 10th")
.jpg?w=600 "NFL Not Investigating Mike Vrabel")
