Greg Clarke's "Once in a Generation" FA Reforms; with added racism and sexism

[endless_wheelies]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eg-Clarke-FA-reform-proposals-generation.html

I was wondering what the Cafe thinks of Greg Clarke's proposed FA reforms? Key points as I understand them are-
- Reduction in FA board size from 12 to 10
- Three FA board seats reserved for women
- Term limits for board members set at 3 x 3 Years
- Revamped FA Council with increased ethnic diversity and life/senior vice-presidents losing voting rights


Will these changes be enough to placate the government? Should they be enough? Should three board seats be reserved for women? Is he right that the Premier League should be left to itself?

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

 

[711]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

At least one should be for LGBT as well.

 

[do.ob]

Not a big fan of forced quotas, I think they are as discrimminating in spirit as the mindset they supposedly want to fight.

 

[Hawks2008]

The FA just destroyed the patriarchy.

 

[endless_wheelies]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

Because given the FA's current state that's the only way to make it happen.

 

[Mister_Stubbs]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

Because we live in a day in age where people have nothing better to complain and campaign for.

 

[K2K]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

The women can't do any worse than the men that have led the FA over the years surely.

 

[ivaldo]

The women can't do any worse than the men that have led the FA over the years surely.

Why not just have the best people suited to the job? Is it impossible for the FA to function optimally without at least 30% women on the board?

 

[K2K]

Why not just have the best people suited to the job? Is it impossible for the FA to function optimally without at least 30% women on the board?

Who are those people though?

The FA has never really been chosen along those lines, ever.

It's nice to throw around hypothetical about the best people for the job but that doesn't exist even now, with a current culture in the FA being a job-for-boys mentality.

Allowing for greater representation of women will not really stop the best people getting the job at all. The pros are that this may allow them to focus on other areas that might have been neglected in the past like women's football for example. Making it a legal obligation also allows for women to get their foot in the door, in an organisation like the FA which has very much been a closed shop.

 

[K2K]

Because given the FA's current state that's the only way to make it happen.

That s basically my point too.

The FA needs its hands held to get to such a position.

 

[ivaldo]

Who are those people though?

The FA has never really been chosen along those lines, ever.

It's nice to throw around hypothetical about the best people for the job but that doesn't exist even now, with a current culture in the FA being a job-for-boys mentality.

Allowing for greater representation of women will not really stop the best people getting the job at all. The pros are that this may allow them to focus on other areas that might have been neglected in the past like women's football for example. Making it a legal obligation also allows for women to get their foot in the door, in an organisation like the FA which has very much been a closed shop.

You're right, they haven't, but that's what these reforms are about. It's just putting another needless obstacle in place to satisfy a quota.

 

[Badunk]

At least one board member should be able to do at least 50 keepy uppies.

 

[rcoobc]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

To even it out, three seats MUST also be for men. That seems fair. I don't think that's going to be a problem though....

 

[FC Ronaldo]

Typical FA/FIFA/UEFA/Football politics BS. Don't actually change the process but change how the process is viewed in line with current political and ethical correctness. It will be the same old, same old just with different faces.

 

[Cascarino]

Who are those people though?

The FA has never really been chosen along those lines, ever.

It's nice to throw around hypothetical about the best people for the job but that doesn't exist even now, with a current culture in the FA being a job-for-boys mentality.

Allowing for greater representation of women will not really stop the best people getting the job at all. The pros are that this may allow them to focus on other areas that might have been neglected in the past like women's football for example. Making it a legal obligation also allows for women to get their foot in the door, in an organisation like the FA which has very much been a closed shop.

Completely agree, I think at the least this is a step in the right direction. Sexism is rampant in football at all levels.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The women can't do any worse than the men that have led the FA over the years surely.

Of course they can.

 

[Physiocrat]

At least one should be for LGBT as well.

Add one for a disabled member too.

 

[Clas Sified]

What's the point of having a quota of 3 women? Just make it people best suited for the job, and to do that actually work on a better screening process for who gets on the board.

 

[GrandJury]

Equality of result because equality of opportunity is not enough apparently,

Before someone says women don't have equality of opportunity in this case...Prove it.

 

[stepic]

I don't understand why three seats MUST be for women. Why?

Because years of engrained sexism at board level means women don't get a chance. This is one way to address that. It shouldn't be necessary but unfortunately it is.

Having one LGBT member is also a step in the right direction, particularly if it in any way helps encourage more active footballers to come out.

 

[Piratesoup]

Can't wait for some slower witted pundit to make a saucy joke about women and football on TV and get shafted for it afterwards.

 

[GrandJury]

Because years of engrained sexism at board level means women don't get a chance. This is one way to address that. It shouldn't be necessary but unfortunately it is.

Having one LGBT member is also a step in the right direction, particularly if it in any way helps encourage more active footballers to come out.

Big claim since that would be illegal, please provide evidence that this is the case.

 

[Piratesoup]

Also can't wait for this thread to descend into madness

 

[stepic]

Big claim since that would be illegal, please provide evidence that this is the case.

It's not just a football thing, women are generally underrepresented at board level. Don't think thats a particularly controversial statement.

 

[GrandJury]

It's not just a football thing, women are generally underrepresented at board level. Don't think thats a particularly controversial statement.

Statistical disparity does not always mean discrimination.

If that's your argument that there must be discrimination then it's a poor argument.

 

[Eire Red United]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eg-Clarke-FA-reform-proposals-generation.html

I was wondering what the Cafe thinks of Greg Clarke's proposed FA reforms? Key points as I understand them are-
- Reduction in FA board size from 12 to 10
- Three FA board seats reserved for women
- Term limits for board members set at 3 x 3 Years
- Revamped FA Council with increased ethnic diversity and life/senior vice-presidents losing voting rights


Will these changes be enough to placate the government? Should they be enough? Should three board seats be reserved for women? Is he right that the Premier League should be left to itself?

I think the jobs should be given to those who deserve it most/will do the best job, be that person male, female, black, white or whatever. Distinguishing people and classifying them into certain groups only adds to discrimination.

 

[sammsky1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eg-Clarke-FA-reform-proposals-generation.html

I was wondering what the Cafe thinks of Greg Clarke's proposed FA reforms? Key points as I understand them are-
- Reduction in FA board size from 12 to 10
- Three FA board seats reserved for women
- Term limits for board members set at 3 x 3 Years
- Revamped FA Council with increased ethnic diversity and life/senior vice-presidents losing voting rights


Will these changes be enough to placate the government? Should they be enough? Should three board seats be reserved for women? Is he right that the Premier League should be left to itself?

I think the jobs should be given to those who deserve it most/will do the best job, be that person male, female, black, white or whatever. Distinguishing people and classifying them into certain groups only adds to discrimination.

Admirable in principle, but as the board currently demonstrates, minorities wont ever get in due to inbuilt or unaware biases.

Im sure there are plenty of very senior administrative roles within FA that women would be just as suitable as men to perform. But in current interview process, she never has a chance, else there would be some already. Same goes for ethnic minorities.

 

[GrandJury]

Admirable in principle, but as the board currently demonstrates, minorities wont ever get in due to inbuilt or unaware biases.

Im sure there are plenty of very senior administrative roles within FA that women would be just as suitable as men to perform. But in current interview process, she never has a chance, else there would be some already. Same goes for ethnic minorities.

The current statistical disparity does not provably demonstrate either of these claims of discrimination.

 

[JON.B]

Whatever happened to simply employing people who were best qualified and suited for a specific job role, regardless of gender, colour, age, ethnicity or any other definition they can come up with?

 

[Cassidy]

Whatever happened to simply employing people who were best qualified and suited for a specific job role, regardless of gender, colour, age, ethnicity or any other definition they can come up with?

Its never existed and there has always been discrimination unfortunately

 

[Kentonio]

Statistical disparity does not always mean discrimination.

If that's your argument that there must be discrimination then it's a poor argument.

Of course there's bloody discrimination, or do you just think that an organization being led pretty much totally by men for its entire history just means that men must just be better at the job? For christs sake, is it still 1970 or something..

 

[Scarecrow]

Whatever happened to simply employing people who were best qualified and suited for a specific job role, regardless of gender, colour, age, ethnicity or any other definition they can come up with?

When was that the norm?

 

[stepic]

Statistical disparity does not always mean discrimination.

If that's your argument that there must be discrimination then it's a poor argument.

What's the alternative? That women just historically have not been as adept as men? That they don't seek out promotions because they're content making babies?

 

[GrandJury]

What's the alternative? That women just historically have not been as adept as men? That they don't seek out promotions because they're content making babies?

I'm not the one saying I know what this statistical disparity equates to based on what little information we have. You are.

You assuming this must be discrimination is the problem.

Of course there's bloody discrimination, or do you just think that an organization being led pretty much totally by men for its entire history just means that men must just be better at the job? For christs sake, is it still 1970 or something..

I'm out of posts for the day on the main forums so I've edited this post to add the two replies.

History is not current, nobody is going to argue that women weren't equal decades ago but that's not the argument. The majority of people who play for teams in the National Basketball Association are black, very few of them are...Jews for example. Are you going to make the argument that The NBA is anti-semetic based on this discrepancy?

Informative read for those doubting sexism in football, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/07/women-football-survey-karren-brady
And your assuming that discrimination isn't the problem.

@Cascarino I'll read that article now.

And no I didn't assume anything, stop making things up please.

Well we have absolutely rock solid evidence of gender discrimination going back for at least a couple of thousand years, including discrimination at all levels of employment during the lifetimes of many of us here today. Yet apparently we're not supposed to 'assume' discrimination? Is this a wind up?

@Kentonio So discrimination must be happening in this specific case because there is evidence going back thousands of years of discrimination. You're assuming guilt before innocence, no this isn't a wind up. I studied statistical and data analysis at university and you assuming that a discrepancy must equate to discrimination is faulty logic. Demonstrate this discrepancy is because of discrimination not that the discrepancy is discrimination if you want to make an actual case.

Please view my example above of The NBA and tell me how you justify that not being discrimination but that this must be discrimination please. I'd like to see how you are consistent on this matter with different examples.

 

[Cascarino]

Informative read for those doubting sexism in football, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/07/women-football-survey-karren-brady

To those who keep asking why 'we can't just let the best person have the job', it's because that's what we had, and inevitably older white men were the ones getting the positions.

I'm not the one saying I know what this statistical disparity equates to based on what little information we have. You are.

You assuming this must be discrimination is the problem.

And you're assuming that discrimination isn't the problem.

 

[Kentonio]

I'm not the one saying I know what this statistical disparity equates to based on what little information we have. You are.

You assuming this must be discrimination is the problem.

Well we have absolutely rock solid evidence of gender discrimination going back for at least a couple of thousand years, including discrimination at all levels of employment during the lifetimes of many of us here today. Yet apparently we're not supposed to 'assume' discrimination? Is this a wind up?

 

[sammsky1]

The current statistical disparity does not provably demonstrate either of these claims of discrimination.

Too much wrong with this to even start to answer. So I wont bother except to say you're either a troll or incredibly naive.

 

[sammsky1]

no this isn't a wind up. I studied statistical and data analysis at university

you assuming that a discrepancy must equate to discrimination is faulty logic. Demonstrate this discrepancy is because of discrimination not that the discrepancy is discrimination if you want to make an actual case.

Whoopy doo. So what?

 

[711]

Add one for a disabled member too.

Yeah, I'd just put out an advert for a one-legged mixed-race transgender zoroastrian pygmy ex-prisoner with learning difficulties, that should do it.