Football League's 'Rooney Rule'

The Football League is one step closer to introducing a ‘Rooney Rule’ in a bid to increase the number of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) managers and coaches in the sport by promoting open and transparent recruitment practices.

Further talks will take place between the clubs and the Football League with the aim finalising the proposals in time for a formal vote at their 2016 Annual General Meeting ahead of potential implementation in 2016/17.

The recommendations were developed after a six month process of engagement with sports and inclusion campaign organisations in the UK and abroad including The FA, the Premier League, PFA, LMA, Kick it Out, the Sports People's Think Tank and NFL.

jesus wept. what has the world come to when you have to give a job to a person because the colour of there skin and not how good they can do the job.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/20876/9875482/football-leagues-rooney-rule-moves-a-step-closer

No one 'has' to give a job to anyone. It just means that they have to interview someone from ethnic minority along with the rest of the candidates.

RealGunner wrote:No one 'has' to give a job to anyone. It just means that they have to interview someone from ethnic minority along with the rest of the candidates.

why should they. no point giving a interview to someone that has no chance of getting the job. and if a person had the chance of getting the job it wouldent matter who they are.

Why is it called the Rooney rule? It had nothing to do with him.

Not that Rooney ffs

Don't call me James wrote:Why is it called the Rooney rule? It had nothing to do with him.

if it was wayne rooney you would have to give the job to a rinkled up prozzi.

So basically your being invited to waste your time to a job you won't get and the only reason you're there is because you're a minority?

Naw, you are invited to surprise the people and show them you can do it, while normally you wouldn't even have gotten the chance to present yourself in the first place.

rwo power wrote:Naw, you are invited to surprise the people and show them you can do it, while normally you wouldn't even have gotten the chance to present yourself in the first place.

But if the employer wasn't going to invite you the interview in the first place and only does it because of a rule, I don't think he's going to hire you.

I find this rule unnecessary, but I suppose it won't do any harm, either.

Art Morte wrote:

rwo power wrote:Naw, you are invited to surprise the people and show them you can do it, while normally you wouldn't even have gotten the chance to present yourself in the first place.

But if the employer wasn't going to invite you the interview in the first place and only does it because of a rule, I don't think he's going to hire you.

I find this rule unnecessary, but I suppose it won't do any harm, either.

BESIDES RAISING FALSE HOPE AND WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME

The difference is that people are at least given a chance to present themselvews vs. not being given any chance at all. And who says they couldn't survise the interviewer with their presentation after all?

In Germany there are experiments that people fill in applications (that go via the Arbeitsamt) without entering their name, so that the staff manager invites the people only according to their skills, while before people with foreign names likely wouldn't have gotten an invitation in the first place. The results of that were actually seen as very positive.

But that's not how life works, though. You don't get a job interview based on whether you can surprise the employer or not, you get a job interview based on your credentials and proven skills. If you don't have those, you don't get an interview. The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

Lex wrote:The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

Lol. It's just reality.

Lex wrote:The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

That's what happens - and that was why this project was started in Germany where the name, gender, nationality and religion were blanked out. That way people were actually only invited due to credentials etc - and that did work.

zigra wrote:

Lex wrote:The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

Lol. It's just reality.

Is it bollocks

rwo power wrote:

Lex wrote:The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

That's what happens - and that was why this project was started in Germany where the name, gender, nationality and religion were blanked out. That way people were actually only invited due to credentials etc - and that did work.

This rule doesn't sound like that, though. It just sounds like people of different ethnicities will be invited along, regardless of credentials, skills or experience. If it's a carbon copy of the German model, though, I'm all for it.

Lex wrote:But that's not how life works, though. You don't get a job interview based on whether you can surprise the employer or not, you get a job interview based on your credentials and proven skills. If you don't have those, you don't get an interview. The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

Actually you'll be surprised though, seen so much BS about people being hired to fill quotas lol.

Lex wrote:But that's not how life works, though. You don't get a job interview based on whether you can surprise the employer or not, you get a job interview based on your credentials and proven skills. If you don't have those, you don't get an interview. The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

That's why the rule was implemented in the NFL. There were plenty of qualified, non-whites who weren't getting opportunities at head coaching positions. Actually by implementing the rule mitigated the effect of that can of worms potentially being opened. The potential difference here is (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) in the U.S. minorities, and mostly blacks were systematically segregated and discriminated against from opportunities in general, and the effects of the treatment have yet to be fully reversed. That is why measures such as affirmative action were put in to place (not making a direct comparison to Rooney rule here), to give minorities a chance, when previously they hadn't been given any. I'm not as educated on historic racial discrimination or any possible legally supported segregation practices in England/Europe, but that's the basis of the of the Rooney rule in America.

Nevertheless, from a PR perspective, it's better to be proactive with the rule implementation, than to let public discourse and debate about unfair hiring processes get stirred up. And from an hiring perspective there isn't any reason this shouldn't be done. To be opposed to to interviewing a candidate of a diverse background for a manager position opening would come across as absurdly petty and possibly revealing of peoples' true sentiments on racial equality.

lenear1030 wrote:

Lex wrote:But that's not how life works, though. You don't get a job interview based on whether you can surprise the employer or not, you get a job interview based on your credentials and proven skills. If you don't have those, you don't get an interview. The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

That's why the rule was implemented in the NFL. There were plenty of qualified, non-whites who weren't getting opportunities at head coaching positions. Actually by implementing the rule mitigated the effect of that can of worms potentially being opened. The potential difference here is (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) in the U.S. minorities, and mostly blacks were systematically segregated and discriminated against from opportunities in general, and the effects of the treatment have yet to be fully reversed. That is why measures such as affirmative action were put in to place (not making a direct comparison to Rooney rule here), to give minorities a chance, when previously they hadn't been given any. I'm not as educated on historic racial discrimination or any possible legally supported segregation practices in England/Europe, but that's the basis of the of the Rooney rule in America.

Nevertheless, from a PR perspective, it's better to be proactive with the rule implementation, than to let public discourse and debate about unfair hiring processes get stirred up. And from an hiring perspective there isn't any reason this shouldn't be done. To be opposed to to interviewing a candidate of a diverse background for a manager position opening would come across as absurdly petty and possibly revealing of peoples' true sentiments on racial equality.

ive never been to the USA so im not in the know. but it seems a lot of black people over there seem to think they don't get a fair shot at life. now if a black man can become the president of the USA then im not sure how they can say they don't have a chance. maybe its time people should stop blaming skin colour for what they do in life and start looking at how hard they are working for it.

Unique wrote:

lenear1030 wrote:

Lex wrote:But that's not how life works, though. You don't get a job interview based on whether you can surprise the employer or not, you get a job interview based on your credentials and proven skills. If you don't have those, you don't get an interview. The implication of this proposed rule is that people are being overlooked due to their name or ethnicity, which is a pretty big can of worms to open

That's why the rule was implemented in the NFL. There were plenty of qualified, non-whites who weren't getting opportunities at head coaching positions. Actually by implementing the rule mitigated the effect of that can of worms potentially being opened. The potential difference here is (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) in the U.S. minorities, and mostly blacks were systematically segregated and discriminated against from opportunities in general, and the effects of the treatment have yet to be fully reversed. That is why measures such as affirmative action were put in to place (not making a direct comparison to Rooney rule here), to give minorities a chance, when previously they hadn't been given any. I'm not as educated on historic racial discrimination or any possible legally supported segregation practices in England/Europe, but that's the basis of the of the Rooney rule in America.

Nevertheless, from a PR perspective, it's better to be proactive with the rule implementation, than to let public discourse and debate about unfair hiring processes get stirred up. And from an hiring perspective there isn't any reason this shouldn't be done. To be opposed to to interviewing a candidate of a diverse background for a manager position opening would come across as absurdly petty and possibly revealing of peoples' true sentiments on racial equality.

ive never been to the USA so im not in the know. but it seems a lot of black people over there seem to think they don't get a fair shot at life. now if a black man can become the president of the USA then im not sure how they can say they don't have a chance. maybe its time people should stop blaming skin colour for what they do in life and start looking at how hard they are working for it.

Obama is black only on the most superficial of levels.

He was raised in a majority Asian place where his white grandparents paid his way through the best school in Hawaii, while he was able to live in relative seclusion 3000 km from the rest of the country. He wouldnt have lived even remotely the same life if he was in the continental United States.

The rule serves a purpose because it isn't always about the "Best person" getting a job. I work in healthcare and even when surgeon are being hired it isn't just their credentials being viewed. Things like personality, and who you know, goes further than anything else. If we are going to be really honest the vast majority of people in a position to hire anybody will only hire somebody they know. The cronyism of men.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote:

lenear1030 wrote:

That's why the rule was implemented in the NFL. There were plenty of qualified, non-whites who weren't getting opportunities at head coaching positions. Actually by implementing the rule mitigated the effect of that can of worms potentially being opened. The potential difference here is (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) in the U.S. minorities, and mostly blacks were systematically segregated and discriminated against from opportunities in general, and the effects of the treatment have yet to be fully reversed. That is why measures such as affirmative action were put in to place (not making a direct comparison to Rooney rule here), to give minorities a chance, when previously they hadn't been given any. I'm not as educated on historic racial discrimination or any possible legally supported segregation practices in England/Europe, but that's the basis of the of the Rooney rule in America.

Nevertheless, from a PR perspective, it's better to be proactive with the rule implementation, than to let public discourse and debate about unfair hiring processes get stirred up. And from an hiring perspective there isn't any reason this shouldn't be done. To be opposed to to interviewing a candidate of a diverse background for a manager position opening would come across as absurdly petty and possibly revealing of peoples' true sentiments on racial equality.

ive never been to the USA so im not in the know. but it seems a lot of black people over there seem to think they don't get a fair shot at life. now if a black man can become the president of the USA then im not sure how they can say they don't have a chance. maybe its time people should stop blaming skin colour for what they do in life and start looking at how hard they are working for it.

Obama is black only on the most superficial of levels.

He was raised in a majority Asian place where his white grandparents paid his way through the best school in Hawaii, while he was able to live in relative seclusion 3000 km from the rest of the country. He wouldnt have lived even remotely the same life if he was in the continental United States.

The rule serves a purpose because it isn't always about the "Best person" getting a job. I work in healthcare and even when surgeon are being hired it isn't just their credentials being viewed. Things like personality, and who you know, goes further than anything else. If we are going to be really honest the vast majority of people in a position to hire anybody will only hire somebody they know. The cronyism of men.

jesus Christ. the guy is black. and we both know good and well the American people didn't look up his back ground before they voted for him. lets be honest here mate. the race card is worn out. if you are good at what you do then you will get the job. forcing people to interview a black guy for a job is more racist than just picking the best guy for the job imo.

Unique wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote: ive never been to the USA so im not in the know. but it seems a lot of black people over there seem to think they don't get a fair shot at life. now if a black man can become the president of the USA then im not sure how they can say they don't have a chance. maybe its time people should stop blaming skin colour for what they do in life and start looking at how hard they are working for it.

Obama is black only on the most superficial of levels.

He was raised in a majority Asian place where his white grandparents paid his way through the best school in Hawaii, while he was able to live in relative seclusion 3000 km from the rest of the country. He wouldnt have lived even remotely the same life if he was in the continental United States.

The rule serves a purpose because it isn't always about the "Best person" getting a job. I work in healthcare and even when surgeon are being hired it isn't just their credentials being viewed. Things like personality, and who you know, goes further than anything else. If we are going to be really honest the vast majority of people in a position to hire anybody will only hire somebody they know. The cronyism of men.

jesus Christ. the guy is black. and we both know good and well the American people didn't look up his back ground before they voted for him. lets be honest here mate. the race card is worn out. if you are good at what you do then you will get the job. forcing people to interview a black guy for a job is more racist than just picking the best guy for the job imo.

His background,including his two biographical books, were widely circulated and reported before both of his elections to be honest though. To pretend he was just another black bloke, and viewed as much by the average person over here, is dishonest.

You are parroting a meritocratic lie which doesn't exist anymore because in an age of globalization there is always more people who can do your job even if you are good at it. There is a big story in America now of Disney forcing its own IT workers to train their H1B(slave foreign labor) replacements. Are these people magically no longer good at their jobs?

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Obama is black only on the most superficial of levels.

He was raised in a majority Asian place where his white grandparents paid his way through the best school in Hawaii, while he was able to live in relative seclusion 3000 km from the rest of the country. He wouldnt have lived even remotely the same life if he was in the continental United States.

The rule serves a purpose because it isn't always about the "Best person" getting a job. I work in healthcare and even when surgeon are being hired it isn't just their credentials being viewed. Things like personality, and who you know, goes further than anything else. If we are going to be really honest the vast majority of people in a position to hire anybody will only hire somebody they know. The cronyism of men.

jesus Christ. the guy is black. and we both know good and well the American people didn't look up his back ground before they voted for him. lets be honest here mate. the race card is worn out. if you are good at what you do then you will get the job. forcing people to interview a black guy for a job is more racist than just picking the best guy for the job imo.

His background,including his two biographical books, were widely circulated and reported before both of his elections to be honest though. To pretend he was just another black bloke, and viewed as much by the average person over here, is dishonest.

You are parroting a meritocratic lie which doesn't exist anymore because in an age of globalization there is always more people who can do your job even if you are good at it. There is a big story in America now of Disney forcing its own IT workers to train their H1B(slave foreign labor) replacements. Are these people magically no longer good at their jobs?

so if his background and his 2 books helped him to be the leader of the free world then colour had nothing to do with it. so that kind of makes my point. black people cant say we don't get a chance when the most powerful man on earth is black.

There is an incredible amount of misinformation and arguments from positions of bad faith going on in here.

I can't believe we still see the black president means racism is dead argument.

VendettaRed07 wrote:There is an incredible amount of misinformation and arguments from positions of bad faith going on in here.

I can't believe we still see the black president means racism is dead argument.

nobody said that. But what it does show is if a black man can become the most powerful man on earth. Then I'm pretty sure they have the same chance in life as everyone els. And telling football clubs they have to give somone a chance because he is black is incredibly racest.

Unique wrote:

VendettaRed07 wrote:There is an incredible amount of misinformation and arguments from positions of bad faith going on in here.

I can't believe we still see the black president means racism is dead argument.

nobody said that. But what it does show is if a black man can become the most powerful man on earth. Then I'm pretty sure they have the same chance in life as everyone els. And telling football clubs they have to give somone a chance because he is black is incredibly racest.

How do you not see how you are contradicting yourself here.

You are clearly implying racism doesn't deny people opportunity anymore and doesn't take part in the process hiring for certain positions or effect their social mobility to get into positions of power with this statement.

You can believe that if you want, however just remember that believing it doesn't make it true, and ignores extensive research and historical data that clearly proves the opposite. Race plays a massive part in people's ability to be hired for certain positions. When you consider that the vast majority of sports teams in the U.S. and UK are owned by rich white people, bias and racism has effected black people to get an equal chance at getting management and/or coaching jobs.

And again, nobody is forcing anyone to "hire a black person just because they are black".. Its to force them to just sit down and listen to someone and why they believe they are right for the job. It's not racist to enforce this.. It is a reaction to racism.. And a reaction to the fact that historically black people have been systematically and disproportionately denied that. The positive effect of the Rooney rule and what good it has done for race relations in the American sports scene and NFL is all online and available to read if you are actually interested in understanding it.