[Football] Football commentators must address racial “bias” article taken from the BBC Sport site

[Guinness Boy]

Are you sure about those Solly figures? Seems wrong on both measures.

Possibly he's only 1.8m tall, but data seems to place him in the 78 - 88 kg bracket.

Solly was tipping his Christmas waste at the Hove recycling centre just before New Year and parked next to us. He's pretty close to the same height as me and I'm 1.83m. I noticed because I always got the impression from the WSU that he's not that tall. 1.83 is exactly 6ft in old money. Allow a cm or two either way as I didn't manage to go back to back with him

Basically [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION] is correct.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Joe Calzaghe, Carl Froch, Tyson Fury.... Hasn't the heavy weight boxing been more non black than black champions over the last decade? Think something similar through the divisions. Another misconception maybe?

None of those guys carry much muscle. If they got massive in the gym they would lose their speed and stamina. That balance between muscle mass and speed/stamina doesn't seem to affect the back fighters as much.

Look at Bruno vs Tyson. Look at both Eubanks. Holyfield. David Haye. Bernard Hopkins. Anthony Joshua. They just look more muscular.

 

[Machiavelli]

Possibly he's only 1.8m tall, but data seems to place him in the 78 - 88 kg bracket.

As you're offering me a range, I'll take the 78kg for Solly

 

[Bakero]

They're all ripped, they train every day and have dieticians!

Soyuncu is impressive. Ronaldo as well. There's always going to be exceptions. I'm saying overall that of the players who you look at and think "he's built like a brick shithouse" they're usually black because there is a biological difference in building muscle mass. It's the same in boxing, the exception being Klitschko. When you see a musclebound white boxer you just know he's going to be blowing by the 6th round, Robin Reid springs to mind.

I see what you're saying, Billy. But the issue isn't different physiques or that you can't describe someone who is fast and strong as fast and strong. It's the tendency of commentators to fixate on the physical attributes of black players, rather than nous, skill or leadership, for example.

 

[Sheebo]

its one thing to assume a black player is fast. another to recognise an ability seen. are we saying we shouldnt comment when black players are fast, example Sterling steams past defenders (of unspecified race) for fear of racial bias?

Black people are biologically faster than white people on the whole - fact.

I’ve never noticed any bias whatsoever and tbh think this is going too far analysing stuff like this when 99% of commentators are most likely not racist. I’m all for the black lives matter movement in terms of equality, but I am also seeing some shit going wayyyyy too far. It’s like we’re scared of anything that may ‘offend’ now. Just my opinion.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Black people are biologically faster than white people on the whole - fact.

I’ve never noticed any bias whatsoever and tbh think this is going too far analysing stuff like this when 99% of commentators are most likely not racist. I’m all for the black lives matter movement in terms of equality, but I am also seeing some shit going wayyyyy too far. It’s like we’re scared of anything that may ‘offend’ now. Just my opinion.

Don't think it has anything to do with identifying anyone as racist, or have anything to apologise for, it's just a study that points to an unconscious bias. I thought it was actually quite interesting, and as human beings we all carry a bias, for example I carry a bias for anyone that reads the Daily Mail. We carry all sorts of bias in us, doesn't necessarily make us racist or discriminatory, but nothing wrong in reflecting and going 'oh I didn't realise I did that', or interesting that has been happening. Knowledge is generally a good thing rather than bad.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Don't think it has anything to do with identifying anyone as racist, or have anything to apologise for, it's just a study that points to an unconscious bias. I thought it was actually quite interesting, and as human beings we all carry a bias, for example I carry a bias for anyone that reads the Daily Mail. We carry all sorts of bias in us, doesn't necessarily make us racist or discriminatory, but nothing wrong in reflecting and going 'oh I didn't realise I did that', or interesting that has been happening. Knowledge is generally a good thing rather than bad.

Agreed. It's much the same as when you hear someone describe someone, who may be the only black person in a fairly large range as "the big black guy". I reckon 90% of those people wouldn't bother using "big white guy" in the same circumstances. "Big lad" or "tall bloke" maybe. It doesn't mean those people are horrible racists who need to be hounded out of society, just that they do betray a bias in their speech, unintentionally.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I see what you're saying, Billy. But the issue isn't different physiques or that you can't describe someone who is fast and strong as fast and strong. It's the tendency of commentators to fixate on the physical attributes of black players, rather than nous, skill or leadership, for example.

Yes, lightbulb moment, maybe I've focused on the wrong thing here. Someone else mentioned about commentators being lazy, maybe that's what it all boils down to - they pick one obvious attribute to focus on and ignore everything else.

Drogba springs to mind, always talked and his pace and power which was absolutely true, but he was a very clever striker.

 

[Sheebo]

Don't think it has anything to do with identifying anyone as racist, or have anything to apologise for, it's just a study that points to an unconscious bias. I thought it was actually quite interesting, and as human beings we all carry a bias, for example I carry a bias for anyone that reads the Daily Mail. We carry all sorts of bias in us, doesn't necessarily make us racist or discriminatory, but nothing wrong in reflecting and going 'oh I didn't realise I did that', or interesting that has been happening. Knowledge is generally a good thing rather than bad.

Fair comments. I get what you mean. Just worried we’re over analysing things now. It is interesting but it’s also one study and also wasn’t really noticed by many I’d guess. If only everyone wasn’t prejudice there would be no need for any of this.

 

[AlbionBro]

This all sounds a load of poppycock to me.

 

[Giraffe]

I'm not sure that the commentators are being racist. Sometimes it's a style of play more than racism. I suspect a lot would find it hard to see Dunk or Duffy being a good manager for example, but can perhaps see Bruno?

Equally how many think John Terry would be a good manager, but Frank Lampard seems obviously made for it?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm not sure that the commentators are being racist. Sometimes it's a style of play more than racism. I suspect a lot would find it hard to see Dunk or Duffy being a good manager for example, but can perhaps see Bruno?

Equally how many think John Terry would be a good manager, but Frank Lampard seems obviously made for it?

No one has said the commentators are being racist.

There really is a gulf between racism, i.e. a conscious discrimination, to say focusing in on an attribute without any conscious intent, i.e. an unconscious bias.

 

[Swansman]

The guy commentating Millwall - Swansea is suddenly completely obsessed with the cleverness of Andre Ayew, who has been completely shit all game.

 

[jessiejames]

Traore looks more like a rugby player than a footballer.

 

[Sheebo]

The guy commentating Millwall - Swansea is suddenly completely obsessed with the cleverness of Andre Ayew, who has been completely shit all game.

 

[portlock seagull]

Honestly, this is cringe-worthy. Let's get it in the bear pit quick before anyone else comes out with some absolute corkers.

Sorry [MENTION=3166]keaton[/MENTION], there is no room for satire!

You and I hardly agree on anything so I’m fine with your viewpoint knowing neither is universal.

 

[Bodian]

These days if you say Adama Traore is pacy and powerful you get thrown in jail.

Seriously - you're saying that these days, just for saying Traore is pacy and powerful, you get thrown into jail? Thrown into jail? You're saying, these days...

 

[GT49er]

Agreed. It's much the same as when you hear someone describe someone, who may be the only black person in a fairly large range as "the big black guy". I reckon 90% of those people wouldn't bother using "big white guy" in the same circumstances.

Quite possibly they would - if the 'big white guy' was the only white person in the gathering. It's an obvious means of clear visual identification.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Agreed. It's much the same as when you hear someone describe someone, who may be the only black person in a fairly large range as "the big black guy". I reckon 90% of those people wouldn't bother using "big white guy" in the same circumstances. "Big lad" or "tall bloke" maybe. It doesn't mean those people are horrible racists who need to be hounded out of society, just that they do betray a bias in their speech, unintentionally.

They certainly would. Trinidad & Tobago had a white man played for them in the World Cup a few years back, and he was definitely referred to as the white guy. Especially byt eh Trinidadians, according to at least one interview with him.

If five men with black hair and one with blond hair, you would refer to the blond guy. If five men are thin and one fat, you would (assuming politeness wasn't too important) refer to the fat guy. If five were short and one tall, you would refer to the tall guy.

Someone who is truly non-racist would, if there were five white men and one black, refer to the black guy - because to someone who is truly non-racist, colour of skin means no more than colour of hair. But society as a whole hasn't reached that stage yet, and the anti-racist movements presumably think that stage is too far away even to strive for as yet - regardless of what Martin Luther King said 50+ years ago. So they still divide us into "BAME" and "white British" and expect the two groups to be treated differently. Is that better? I don't think so; I may be wrong. But just to call someone racist because they think colour of skin is a useful descriptor? That's wrong. The true anti-racist thinks that colour of skin is no more than a useful descriptor.

 

[clapham_gull]

Black people are biologically faster than white people on the whole - fact.

From certain regions genetically, but you have made the "unconscious bias" mistake of lumping all black people together in terms of their physique which varies massively.

We are all guilty of it. We tend to think that black people are better at the 100 metres, but wouldn't think that white people are better at rock climbing.

We note that the hundred metres final is "filled" with black contestants but don't think about other sports that on reflection are mostly contested by white people.