Combatting racism in football

If I see any racist abuse on here I'll bring it to their attention. What about general abuse?
Well, I am not telling anyone to be a grass and I believe these laws to be draconian.

Generally the Malicious Communications Act, but there is a high bar in the sense that the prosecutor has to prove the person sending it intended it to cause distress or anxiety to a particular person. The message can fall under this offence if it is either: A message that is indecent or grossly offensive; A threat; or Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender.


The Communications Act offence of sending grossly offensive or "indecent, obscene or menacing messages" has a lower bar, in the sense that the person sending the message only has to "have awareness or recognition that sending the message may create fear or apprehension in any reasonable member of the public who reads or sees " (i.e they don't have to intend the message to cause fear and apprehension).
A further offence under the CA is an "intention to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety" by sending a false message. However, that requires the sender to intend the other person annoyance, inconvience or needless anxiety.
 
Last edited:
Premier League players have routinely been abused online by racists, monkey chants thrown at them and black players been marginalized by the media, simply down to their color. Then, not to mention, all the managerial roles in English football are 100% exclusively white. Yet, somehow the Premier League believe they are doing a favor by forcing players to take the knee and have BLM printed on the shirts. Take the hint, Premier League don't give a flying fuck about fighting racism but only concerned about their PR.
 
Also UEFA. Instead of all this virtue signalling shit and if they truly cared about racism, they would've actually banned countries like Bulgaria, Serbia, Poland, etc and all these other shithole European countries from playing in Qualifiers and having teams in the Champions league/Europa League, where a majority of the racism is taking place; instead of giving out pointless insignificant fines.
 
Lol the deniers come storming out of the blocks. "Fuck the experts! I know more than they do". "They don't know what they are talking about". "Worlds gone mad".

Why don't you read and absorb the results, thinck how it impacts on you personally and then hold a mirror up to yourself and ask if you do the same and if you do perhaps consider there is something you might want to change as it might affect someone else.

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.)
 
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.)
What is "intelligence"? Someone who can add and subtract? Or someone who can assess and analyse the threat of an Oppo counter attack? Are you differentiating between BAME and White within "poorer" societies? You appear to be lumping that group altogether.
 
What is "intelligence"? Someone who can add and subtract? Or someone who can assess and analyse the threat of an Oppo counter attack? Are you differentiating between BAME and White within "poorer" societies? You appear to be lumping that group altogether.

Intelligence in this respect is footballing intelligence - understanding the game, tactical understanding and knowledge, ability to make the right decision, understanding where and when to pass the ball, make a run, that sort of thing.

I am not differentiating between BAME and non-BAME in poorer societies. Non-BAME players can also come from a poorer background, but I believe that the proportion of BAME players coming from poorer communities is greater than that non-BAME players (have no evidence of it though, but it seems likely based on very basic knowledge regarding average socioeconomic backgrounds of BAME vs whites in western countries)
 
Intelligence in this respect is footballing intelligence - understanding the game, tactical understanding and knowledge, ability to make the right decision, understanding where and when to pass the ball, make a run, that sort of thing.

I am not differentiating between BAME and non-BAME in poorer societies. Non-BAME players can also come from a poorer background, but I believe that the proportion of BAME players coming from poorer communities is greater than that non-BAME players (have no evidence of it though, but it seems likely based on very basic knowledge regarding average socioeconomic backgrounds of BAME vs whites in western countries)
On what metric are you measuring "football intelligence"? Define "understanding the game", and then apply a measure to that, what does it look like? "Tactical understanding", what does this mean? How are you measuring it? "Football knowledge", what does this mean? How are you applying it, measuring it? Is football intelligence the ability to follow what the manager's instructions are or working it for themselves on the pitch? How do you know the difference?

"Understanding when to pass the ball" - Last night we saw Kane, Son, Lamela and Bergwijn look like they couldn't pass the ball to each other. Are they unintelligent, or were they following the philosophy of the coach, who doesn't want his players to have the ball? "Make a run", is this down to training/coaching set moves on the training field or down to players working off their own skill? How can you stop the difference?

These are just arbitrary words thrown out when analysing football with little to no thought, logic or relevance behind their descriptive when they are applied. Who's judgement is it to say it was an "intelligent pass/run"? What specifically is intelligent about it? The fact it surprised the commentator/analyst, they didn't see it coming? Are De Bruyners crosses intelligent or are they well-drilled and executed? What's the difference?

I know you weren't making the differentiation between BAME and non-BAME, it's why I bought it up (and there are some incredible stats around this that bust some stereotypes within the poorer sections of our society and intelligence when separating BAME and non-BAME that can be used when attempting to measure intelligence).
 
On what metric are you measuring "football intelligence"? Define "understanding the game", and then apply a measure to that, what does it look like? "Tactical understanding", what does this mean? How are you measuring it? "Football knowledge", what does this mean? How are you applying it, measuring it? Is football intelligence the ability to follow what the manager's instructions are or working it for themselves on the pitch? How do you know the difference?

"Understanding when to pass the ball" - Last night we saw Kane, Son, Lamela and Bergwijn look like they couldn't pass the ball to each other. Are they unintelligent, or were they following the philosophy of the coach, who doesn't want his players to have the ball? "Make a run", is this down to training/coaching set moves on the training field or down to players working off their own skill? How can you stop the difference?

These are just arbitrary words thrown out when analysing football with little to no thought, logic or relevance behind their descriptive when they are applied. Who's judgement is it to say it was an "intelligent pass/run"? What specifically is intelligent about it? The fact it surprised the commentator/analyst, they didn't see it coming? Are De Bruyners crosses intelligent or are they well-drilled and executed? What's the difference?

I know you weren't making the differentiation between BAME and non-BAME, it's why I bought it up (and there are some incredible stats around this that bust some stereotypes within the poorer sections of our society and intelligence when separating BAME and non-BAME that can be used when attempting to measure intelligence).

First of all, I just want to reiterate that I am not suggesting and did not suggest that people that may be put in the BAME category, or people from poorer communities for that matter, are less intelligent in general than people that do not fit in that category or come from less poor communities.

Secondly, with regards to footballing intelligence, I do agree that it is a very loose term, one that was not clearly defined in the article to which you linked, and one that I will not make any attempt to clearly define. I do however assume that we can agree that football players have mental abilities that go hand in hamd with their physical and technical abilities to produce a complete set of abilities. I am postulating that it may be likely that players at a Premier League level with inferior physical abilities may have better mental abilities, thereinunder including the abstract "intelligence" to be able to compete with those with greater physical abilities. I have previously shown that there may be some truth in that category 12+ players may on average have superior physical abilities.

I also want to make clear that being category 12+ equals lack of footballing intelligence. I would say that players such as King and Dembele were very intelligent, and I also, perhaps controversially, think that Sissoko is an intelligent footballer (although he seems completely clueless in and around the opponents box).

I would also like to add that I am not saying that there is no bias or in the Premier League and certainly not in football in general. I am just saying that the study you refer to seems, based on the article you linked, to have severe flaws, and that it should be criticised for it (if the article fairly accurately and sufficiently presents its findings).
 
First of all, I just want to reiterate that I am not suggesting and did not suggest that people that may be put in the BAME category, or people from poorer communities for that matter, are less intelligent in general than people that do not fit in that category or come from less poor communities.

Secondly, with regards to footballing intelligence, I do agree that it is a very loose term, one that was not clearly defined in the article to which you linked, and one that I will not make any attempt to clearly define. I do however assume that we can agree that football players have mental abilities that go hand in hamd with their physical and technical abilities to produce a complete set of abilities. I am postulating that it may be likely that players at a Premier League level with inferior physical abilities may have better mental abilities, thereinunder including the abstract "intelligence" to be able to compete with those with greater physical abilities. I have previously shown that there may be some truth in that category 12+ players may on average have superior physical abilities.

I also want to make clear that being category 12+ equals lack of footballing intelligence. I would say that players such as King and Dembele were very intelligent, and I also, perhaps controversially, think that Sissoko is an intelligent footballer (although he seems completely clueless in and around the opponents box).

I would also like to add that I am not saying that there is no bias or in the Premier League and certainly not in football in general. I am just saying that the study you refer to seems, based on the article you linked, to have severe flaws, and that it should be criticised for it (if the article fairly accurately and sufficiently presents its findings).
I'm not in a position to ascertain if the study is flawed or not. Just that it's been carried out by experts who have been specifically employed to research and study the topic and publish their findings.

I deride those that have an opposing opinion on it's findings whilst a) Not having read it b) if read not understood it c) completly misinterpret it's findings and/or invent their own outcomes of the report d) not in the slightest bit qualified to counter the report.
 

think everyone should watch this. If you have been raised in today’s age, the yesteryears, or even in the future, you are racist. It’s how you try to better yourself and understand your privilege.
 
Premier League players have routinely been abused online by racists, monkey chants thrown at them and black players been marginalized by the media, simply down to their color. Then, not to mention, all the managerial roles in English football are 100% exclusively white. Yet, somehow the Premier League believe they are doing a favor by forcing players to take the knee and have BLM printed on the shirts. Take the hint, Premier League don't give a flying fuck about fighting racism but only concerned about their PR.

There is at least one non-white manager in the EPL, right? Wolves manager
 

think everyone should watch this. If you have been raised in today’s age, the yesteryears, or even in the future, you are racist. It’s how you try to better yourself and understand your privilege.

The claim that only in the last 500 years have we attempted to integrate cultures is absolute BS. It’s been happening for tens of thousands of years.
 
Premier League players have routinely been abused online by racists, monkey chants thrown at them and black players been marginalized by the media, simply down to their color. Then, not to mention, all the managerial roles in English football are 100% exclusively white. Yet, somehow the Premier League believe they are doing a favor by forcing players to take the knee and have BLM printed on the shirts. Take the hint, Premier League don't give a flying fuck about fighting racism but only concerned about their PR.
You're right the PL doesn't give a fuck about racism.
They only care about money, which comes from having the best players and the best managers in the world.
They don't care about the colour of someone's skin or their nationality.(how many English managers are there).
They have so much money the clubs can afford the best managers, it just so happens that the best managers are white Europeans, or at least of white European descent.

Giving BAME managers a chance in the lower leagues, to prove themselves, is a different story.
 
Antonio ferdinand talks about the abuse suffered by Tottenham female player Renee Hector

"Hector shares a message sent to her of a mocked-up pregnancy scan which shows the foetus of a baby gorilla. Ferdinand tells the 25-year-old how proud he is of her defiance of such racism. After he confesses to feeling embarrassed that he had not also raised his voice, Hector reminds Ferdinand that his previous silence is immaterial. All that matters is that he is speaking up now."

Who are these evil bastards.
 
Why is this ever brought up as a topic?

Society and its myriad of structures has been shown and evidenced for years as being institutionally prejudiced. Football can't possibly be any different.

To think it could is perverse or extremely wishful thinking or both.
 
Top Bottom