The growth will be fairly organic, more black players will want to be coaches when they see more black coaches. I can't imagine many of them wanted to join the old boys club. More black players now will mean more black coaches which will mean more black coaches.
I agree that having more people 'like you' in higher positions helps make that idea acceptable (to yourself and others), and helps that situation (i.e., more diversity) to continue to exist and develop. In practice though, the organic part doesn't happen. For example, if this growth were organic, you would see a lot more diversity at the top of big business and politics; but in practice, it's a largely still white men running the show. That's where quota come in. Force chance in the here and now, and once that has happened, let the organic development have its way.
I mean, this is the not first generation of footballers with the current level of diversity, but in 2019, only 6 out of 92 coaches of clubs in the English professional leagues were non-white (source:
BBC article). It makes no sense to assume that so few non-white players would have had the tactical nous or interest to become a coach; so there must be something structural at play. I don't know what exactly, and there might be obstacles that can be removed; but putting quota in place to help normalize the idea of having non-white coaches at the highest level. (It's likely similar to the dynamic that makes hiring managers think twice about hiring someone with an Arabic name while they CV is the same as the John Smith next in the pile.)
Is taking the knee a little too politically loaded? Many people agree with the movement but disagree with certain elements of BLM. We can share recognition of a problem without necessarily agreeing to the same solutions (i.e. defunding the police, all the lingo like white privilege etc.). It becomes too dogmatic that way - i.e. letter of the law rather than spirit of the law. Is there not something else that can be done with less of a divisive approach?
Those who identify strongly with a left persuasion might be inclined to jump straight into the rationale of "if you have any problems with taking a knee, BLM etc. you're automatically deeply, unconsciously racist". This is fundamentally wrong. It might be true for some people but it isn't a rule.
Anyway, if the intention is to change hearts and minds, surely the gestures shouldn't be so ritualisitic and politically contentious? Otherwise it doesn't truly do much, and can even entrench people further into their ideological echo chamber.
One of the beautiful things about modern football is that most teams are ethnically diverse and we can see the bond and friendship between a squad of around 25 men from all different nationalities and backgrounds. THIS to me is more powerful than weekly gestures that either get diluted into a ritual or ones that have so many other connotations that exclude people from the main message. Surely the left actually WANT those on the right to be in accord? Why make it fecking difficult with all the extra rhetoric? Look into taking a knee; it's loaded as anything.
EPL removed the connection with BLM for that reason in September actually (too much distraction due to political statements) and replaced it with their own slogan, 'No Room For Racism'. (Source:
The Guardian article.) So the problem shouldn't exist anymore.