People of color have certainly gained equality (or probably majority) in sport as far as numbers in physical presence and athletic opportunities. However, the same cannot be said about opportunities for people of color in upper management/ownership and coaching in sports. One of the most important developments in this decade for race equality was the inception of the “Rooney Rule” (named after the Steelers’ owner) in the NFL in 2003, which requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs.
This article on the subject by Dave Goldberg describes the impact of the Rooney Rule on the NFL. He talks about how the other leagues have fared and the impact on the front offices as well.
“While the NFL hasn't achieved the coaching diversity of other sports leagues--the NBA has had double-digit numbers of black coaches for a decade, Major League Baseball has nine black, Hispanic or Asian managers for 30 teams--the Rooney Rule seems to have inspired minority hires not only on the sidelines but in the front offices. The rule does not apply to top executive hires, but the number of black general managers has increased from one in 2002 to five now. Just as important is the success of minority coaches and GMs: five of the six teams in the last three Super Bowls have had either black coaches or general managers.”
It is interesting to note that the NFL is a sport dominated in numbers by African American athletes, yet the coaching numbers don’t reflect that quite as much as in the NBA, which is in a similar situation of proportion of African American athletes (although the NBA has had higher percentage of minority coaches).
In the article Racial Integration of Coaching by Goff and Tollison, they address the percentage issue: “Black players make up 65% of the workforce in the NFL. Some writers in the media and in economics have used this figure as a benchmark by which to judge hiring of Black coaches. The backgrounds of NFL coaches indicates that past NFL playing experience is not necessarily a strong influence on the hiring of coaches; therefore, the 65% benchmark may not be relevant” (Goff & Tollison, 138).
It is also an interesting concept because race is a social construction. “For Max Weber, there was race only if there was a race consciousness anchored in a community identity which could lead to action, such as segregation or prejudice. These were not necessarily attributable to hereditary differences but to habitus” (Jarvie, Handbook, 335). The problem of having a lack of minority coaches in professional sports was something created by us, and something that required us to create rules to fix it.
So, I pose these questions. Is the Rooney Rule out-dated, or should it continue to be implemented at the same or even a higher level? Should such rules be extended to upper management? Should percentages of athletes in the sport play a role in requirements? Should teams be allowed to interview whoever they want, or should they have to comply because they all fall under the law of the NFL?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I absolutely believe that the Rooney rule is crucial to maintaining a diverse league. Although the sport is indeed dominated by African-Americans, it's important to have that diversity at the management level. Obviously color has no impact on success with Mike Tomlin of the Steelers, and Tony Dungy of the Colts winning the Superbowl in recent years.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of extending the rule to upper management, I believe we will get to that point slowly but surely. Just as women are beginning to take over our society, we will become more accepting of diversity as well.
Sports have been one of the most accepting aspects of society that took in minority groups (M Hardin et. al. 212). The NFL features mainly African-American players as I have stated before, and with the Rooney rule in effect, it leaves room for expansion of these minority groups. Also, because the acceptance of minority groups in on the rise nationally, owners will naturally become more accepting of these groups. Owners tend to make decisions based on social trends (Goff & Tollison 127).
Although I believe in the freedom to make your own decisions, owners in my opinion have the right to hire whoever they want. I think everyone should be fair to all ethnic groups, and the percentage of athletes or owner bias should not affect who gets the job or not. The management or coaching job should go to the most qualified candidate.
As previously reported diversity has been a controversial issue for a number of years now. Ever since the Rooney Rule was put into affect a number of African American coaches have had their fare share of success. As recent of 2007, Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy made history by being the first two black coaches to coach in the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteThis was huge for the sport as well as African-American History. It became a major step for African Americans. Just to show the correlation of how monumental this Super Bowl was, in 1994, "Shell and Dennis Green with the Minnesota Vikings were
the only Black coaches to lead team" (Goff and Tollison 128).
Recent History has proven that the Rooney Rule has been very affective for teams who are looking for new coaches to bring them to the promise land. Mike Tomlin had a huge hole to fill due to the retirement of Bill Cowher. However, his critics were silenced when he led the steelers to the super bowl. Who knew a defensive backs coach from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers could be so crucial to the beloved Steelers?
To have African-American coaches finally get the chance and spotlight to become head coaches has been great for the NFL. Its about time other minorities get their chance to become successful leaders. Over the past 50 years Sport has been ,
" one of the few cultural institutions where Blacks and other minorities have been accepted ; it is the rare domain where Blacks are perhaps presented (in a limited fashion) as being superior to Whites (Sporting Images in Black and White Harrison, 2001). Coaching within the NFL has given minorities another outlet to become accepted and prove to their naysayers that they are just as capable as other candidates.
Even though this is a major advancement for minorites, i do not see management changing anytime soon. Most owners within the NFL are prominatlley white. Until the first African-American becomes an owner , i see this trend to continue.
These certain things take time. The Rooney Rule took years to become an official rule. Once again, i think it would be great for the NFL and would give young African Americans hope that they can become anything they want.
Overall, I am a Fan of the Rooney Rule as it has been great for teams who needed new coaches as well as for the NFL.
It should absolutely go bye-bye. It's reverse racism and I would hope that people in this day and age are picking head coaches based on talent and not color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I was a African-American coach being called in for a job, I would be thinking, "Is this just to appease the Rooney Rule?"
And it's not just winning (or losing teams) that would be hiring black coaches.
As Goff and Tollison write...
"Although the innovation explanation is applicable, we find only mixed and relatively weak evidence that better-run organizations (winners) have proceeded first in hiring Black managers as they tended to do in using Black players (Goff and Tollison, 137)."
And as Bobby mentioned above, sports is one of the first and wide-open places where African-Americans are being employed in wide numbers. If that's the case, why does there need to be a rule where a team must interview a black coach, no matter what?
A troubling subject that I must touch on though is the coverage of holdouts between black and white players, because I think it is on of the reasons the Rooney Rule exists and is still in football.
As written in the Bishop article that because of the way the media covers holdouts depending on race, "any athlete takes a risk by confronting management, but this research suggests that the risk is heightened for African-American athletes (Bishop, 77)."
From that, you can see that racism, though not being waved out in the open, still exists in some ways. For that, the rules that are in place may serve a greater good, though on the surface may seem like overkill.
Although I do believe the Rooney Rule is a little out-dated, I still think it has a place in the NFL, at least for the next couple years. With the numbers the way they are, there is not enough diversity in the league for the rule to be taken away. The NFL has been making good moves to incorporate more minority coaches, but only so much can be done in the short term. According to the Goff and Tollison article, “From 1989 to 1998, the percentage of teams with black coaches ranged from 3% to 10%. Since the 2000 season, these percentages have increased above 10% reaching 22% starting in the 2006 season” (128). The rule doesn’t really harm anyone, and even though it may waste someone’s time if they know who they are going to hire, it doesn’t really affect that team that much since it is only an interview. The rule doesn’t state that teams have to have a certain number of minority coaches, so teams can still find the coaches they want without having to be hassled about racial discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the rule needs to be implicated at a higher level, however. I think the rule has had a positive impact on general managers without being in place. Since people at executive levels on teams usually last longer than coaches, that stat needs to be looked at more in the long run. With the increase of four minority general managers in seven years, obviously the league is making positive strides. I think the fact that coaches and GMs, especially the successful ones, are finally moving us past the Rush Limbaugh mindset that blacks are “insufficiently intelligent to play in thinking positions such as quarterback” (Hardin et al 212). The fact that coaches and GMs are calling the shots and doing a good job is a big step for minorities and proves to people that discriminate that there really is no difference betweens races, whether it be in thinking positions or on the athletic field.
Racism is something that I believe will always exist in the world we live in, with specific regards to professional sports. No matter the sport, it seems as though there is some form of racism. As previously discussed, there is a lack of African-American head coaches in professional football. There is no question that in order for the number of African-American head coaches to increase, the “Rooney Rule” still needs to be in effect.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason that I believe that the “Rooney Rule” still needs to be implemented is because racism and the integration of all races in professional sports and society in general is still relatively fresh. I think we tend to forget that the civil rights movement was only about forty-five years ago, which means the idea of racism and integration is still reasonably new.
The need for the “Rooney Rule” is not to pressure professional football franchises to hire African-American coaches, but to merely remind everyone that racism will not be tolerated and everyone needs to be treated equal. Additionally, when a franchise is interviewing potential head coaches, their thought process needs to be on who is the best candidate to take our franchise to the next level. Now, I am certainly someone who is pro-integration, however, with that said, a franchise does not need to hire an African-American as the head coach just to merely increase the total number of African-American coaches across the league.
There is no question that total integration is a step by step process. It is not going to just all of a sudden happen. With regards to the Goff and Tollison article, they discussed the inaugural dates of integration in professional football. Goff and Tollison said, “The National Football League (NFL) integrated at the player level in 1946, but the first Black coach for NFL was not appointed until Art Shell signed with the Los Angeles Raiders in 1989.” It is the notion that as the years go on, there will be more and more integration at the managerial positions in the NFL and the other professional sports leagues. Look at it from the player’s perspective. It was not until 1946 that the players were integrated, and now in 2009, the players in the league are predominantly African-American.
The overall purpose and need for the “Rooney Rule” is for the upper management to always keep an open mind when it comes to hiring coaches. As talked about in previous posts, no one should fear or oppose the hiring of African-American coaches because look at some of the most recent Super Bowl Champions. Mike Tomlin lead the Steelers to the promise land after taking over for one of the best coaches in NFL history in Bill Cowher. Not only Tomlin, but Tony Dungy, although retired now, lead the Indianapolis Colts to Super Bowl Champions not a few years ago.
I believe that in twenty years time, there will not be a need for the “Rooney Rule,” simply because the integration of races will not be something that is forced, but something that will become expected. No longer will people be shocked at the fact that an African-American is hired as a head coach, or that an African-American was appointed to the general manager position. Soon enough race will become a nonissue and everyone will accept everyone for who they are as a person and not take into account their skin color. However, that is what I believe will take place in twenty years. As for now, we still need to be reminded that skin color does not matter, it is the inner make-up of the person that does.
I strongly dislike the Rooney Rule. Coaches should be hired and interviewed based on their abilities as coaches, not because they are black and white. I think interviewing a black coach just to obey this rule is actually more racist.
ReplyDeleteBrian L. Goff and Robert D. Tollison write about racial integration of coaching.
"From 1989 to 1998, the percentage of teams with Black coaches ranged from 3% to 10%.
Since the 2000 season, these percentages have increased above 10% reaching 22% starting in the 2006 season," they write (128).
But is this because of the Rooney Rule? I can't really say. However, a team shouldn't be penalized for not interviewing a minority just for the sake of interviewing a minority. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a second. If you were interviewed just because you're black and you know the team doesn't intend on hiring you, wouldn't you feel offended? I'd rather not be interviewed in the first place.
Ronald Bishop wrote about media portrayal of black and white athletes, citing Kellen Winslow and Philip Rivers as examples.
"This study suggests that journalists writing for Cleveland news organizations emasculated Winslow, treating him like a moody adolescent incapable of making significant decisions on his own," he writes (77).
There will always be that stigma regarding media portrayal of athletes, leading some to believe that there are still racial undertones in sports. But I think this is only highlighted by the fact that there is an interviewing policy based on race.
Recently there have been questions raised about profession athletes and their motives and loyalty to their team and the game. When players are playing for the motive of the money instead of the game, which is why the questioning increases. Most teams wouldn’t want a player who is so selfish and only cares about the money. These are the players that hold out of training camp, demanded to get traded, demand a higher salary, and things of that nature. Terrell Owens, Michael Crabtree, Darrelle Revis. These are the so called. “Team Wreckers.”
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “It hurts the team even more,” the author Bishop says, “Sports journalist typically raise questions about the motives of a player who decides to hold out. They question the player’s loyalty to the team, as well as the player’s devotion to the game and the team’s fans.”
While professional athletes are getting paid this much there will always be the problem of the hold outs and the demands for high salaries. They can fine the players a certain amount for each day they hold out, but that isn’t really having enough control. One thing that they do have is who they want to hire as their coach.
People are worried how organizations made the transfer from before the civil rights movement to after it. How did these organizations go about hiring minority candidates? These organizations included professional sports. People didn’t understand this process. The major concern was coaching in the MLB a minority player broke in during the 1947 season, but it wasn’t until 1974 when a minority was a coach. 27 years passes for it to get a minority coach.
Racism has always been there now people are seeing it in professional sports. It has always been there and will most likely be there for a long time to come. It is a very important issue when it comes to sports because many of the professionals are a minority.
In the article, “Racial Integration of Coaching: Evidence from the NFL”, the authors Tollison and Goff say, “At a general level, the study of the process of racial integration draws from economic models of innovation and discrimination.”
Racism also affects the economy of the teams as well. If they are noted and having some unjust ices they are more likely to not look like the good guys. This could eventually and most likely hurt their team financially.
Concerning the Rooney Rule, I am stuck somewhere in between on deciding if it should stick around or we should get rid of it. On one hand, I think that it does not cause harm to interview a certain number of minorities because just having to interview them does not mean you have to hire them. But on the other hand, I agree with Andrew. Coaches should be picked based on their competence and their ability to run an effective, successful team.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Racial Integration of Coaching" article, it states that, "Of the current 32 head coaches in the NFL, 25
were coordinators before becoming head coaches. Of the remainder, three switched
from collegiate head coaching positions and three from other assistant coaching
levels in the NFL" (Tollison, 129). This is how I believe the coaches should be picked. In this statistic alone, it does not state the color of any of the coaches, or anything away from the subject of their qualifications for being a head coach.
I can see how some can view the rule as being pointless or even unfair to the minority, but I still think that having the rule around can't do much harm. Giving someone an interview can open up more opportuinites in giving teams a chance to see some people that maybe normally that might have slipped under the radar. Hiring a head coach takes a lot of time, thinking, and planning, and with the limited amount of demand this makes the decision making more crucial.
In the article it shows how this is true. "the number of
player positions demanded by the NFL is quite large with around 3,000 players
starting the preseason. On the coaching side, the markets are quite thin with only 32
head coaching positions available in any NFL season" (Tollison, 129).
It is probably because the number of head coaches is so small compared to the amount of players in the league that this matter is discussed in terms of race and racism. I think that the NFL and all professional sports are a business and to run a successful business you have to have the best employees around. That's it.