Please do not just dismiss anyone raising a point to criticise or ask questions about the findings of the/a study in such an arrogant manner. Although the people behind the study may be "experts" in their field, it does not mean that their study is perfect. In science, any and all studies should face questions and critique.
However, ridiculous assumptions such as "But they're just doing it to score political points - what else is new?" should of course be ignored, unless backed up with some sort of evidence.
Now, regarding the findings of the study - they are interesting and in line with other research showing that people of darker skin color may be perceived as bigger, stronger, more athletic. But as has already been pointed out, in sports it may actually hold some truth. From the article you posted, it does not appear that the study has accounted for actual differences in ability when considering whether the commentary is biased.
The study used the FM database for skin color to have an "objective" way of fitting players into the categories dark and light. I did a quick check using the same database, simply counting players having 17+ in strength and counting players having 17+ in pace for each of the two categories (12+ skin color being dark and 11- being light), in the Premier League. The results were:
Pace: 25 of 36 (69%) with 17+ pace are of 12+ skin color.
Strength: 17 of 30 (57%) with 17+ strength are of 12+ skin color.
According to the Sun, 33% of the players in the Premier League were BAME (August 2017
Proportion of British Premier League players from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds has DOUBLED since 1992). I am not very familiar with the term, but as I understand it includes not only "blacks", but also asian and other ethnic minorities. I guess that the BAME category includes players like e.g. Salah, who was not included in the darker skin color group (12+ skin color), as his skin color was 10 in the database.
I did not find how many black players there are in the premier league, but we can safely say that it was below 33% in 2017 (as 33% was Black + Asian + other minorities) and probably is to this day - based on the data presented in the above-mentioned article that shows that the proportion has been relatively stable from 07/08 to 17/18.
So that means that less than 33% of the Premier League player population accounts for 69% of the fastest 36 players and 57% of the strongest 30 players. Thus, it may not be biased to more often refer to players of darker skin color as fast and/or strong - it may simply be factual.
Now, considering that it has been shown that a far higher proportion of the darker skin, may it also not be bias that leads to 11- skin color players more often being referred to as intelligent? Well, in my opinion that is likely. Not because I am an old racist that believe that blacks are less intelligent that whites, but because of differences in footballing background, culture, education and such. And because it takes a combination of attributes to make a great footballer. Footballers that have less pace and strength, may need to compensate with more intelligence, creativity and/or technical ability to qualify for life as a professional footballer.
It has already been mentioned by a previous poster that african academies put more emphasis on physical attributes. I do not know if that is true, but it might be. What is true in Norway is that it seems that, after a period of time where quite a significant portion of our most talented youth players were players from the relatively poorer parts of our capital, often minorities, there seems to be a shift towards players from clubs with more professional, more expensive youth setups, kids from well-off families, often "white" kids.
The players from the relatively poor parts of the capital has not had the professional setup, but have had a love for football, have played a lot of unorganised football, and have not had the professional setup and education that the more well-off kids have. The lack of education may lead to a less schooled, less disciplined professional player in the end, one who is more reliant on physicality than of intelligence and tactical knowledge. I
assume that the same holds true for other European nations, where BAME kids are proportionately more likely to be raised in relatively poorer parts of their respective countries and cities, where their football education proportinately more often comes from poorer clubs and/or "the streets".
It is mentioned in the article that a lower number of BAME players are captains for their teams. For some leagues, the number of BAME captains are very low. However, in the Premier League, according to the study, 5 players are BAME. From how it is written, it may appear like a low number and a result of bias (or racism). However, considering that only 33% of the players are BAME, 5 is not far off a proportionate number. Considering that it MAY be true that a greater number of BAME players are a bit higher on athletisism and
perhaps proportionately from a less sofisticated background in terms of football education, the slightly disproportionate number of BAME captains may not be due to bias or racism.
(Edit: I did a quick check in the FM database to get a quantitative, "objective" number related to intelligence, checking how may from each category (12+ vs 11-) had a high value for "Decisions". 4 of 18 (22%) players with 16+ "Decisions" where from the 12+ category.)