Discounted Referee Courses
- Thread starter grey59
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
Of course there is a shortage of female referees, not just in Scotland but everywhere. Females make up 51% of the population, don't know the percentage in Scotland but in England as of 2024 8% of all referees were female. That therefore can only mean they are massively underrepresented, and that is why positive action (not positive discrimination) can be used to offer them free or discounted courses.
The ad suggest more women than ever were already becoming referees.
So that suggested, to me, recruitment was ok already.
With regards the 51% comment that makes no sense at all. Are 51% of participants in ALL football being played female? No. More like 10-15%.
I would guess the % of football played by males is overwhelmingly biased to at least 85% plus so maybe the "target" should be 10-15%.
I'm in favour of treating people equally regardless.
The FA love ticking those boxes!
In a world in which there is no bias then sure.
But bias is unconscious and has shown throughout history to disadvantage different groups.
So unless you have some magic therapy that changes how the human mind thinks unconsciously then expect positive action to be required to redress those that find themselves on the wrong side of bias.
“More than ever” could mean 10 instead of 1 per year. Not that they’d suddenly well on their way to 50%.
The wording is to encourage unsure applications, it says to them “come on, it’s not just you, loads of women can and do become referees”. Easier to be a joiner than a trailblazer.
That argument would only work if the rule was that only male referees could referee male football and only females referee female football. Women are massively underrepresented in refereeing, especially at senior levels, I really don't see how any sane person could argue that wasn't the case. If there was a requirement that you could only officiate in games of your own gender then I would agree with you that the representation is probably about right, but clearly that isn't the case.
bester
RefChat Addict
When discussing the number of BAME referees it's referenced against the number of players in the game who are BAME.
I imagine because the BAME population skews younger and therefore should be overrepresented in terms of playing proportion compared to overall population
Are you saying that a free course for BAME referee's will prevent bias? I dont think BIAS has any impact on whether a person applies to do a referee course or not?
Rewording 'positive discrimination' to 'positive action' doesn't eliminate the fact that by enabling one group over another is discrimination.
Real world example. Until very recently, I lived about 100 yards away from a good friend of mine who I both play football and referee with. He's BAME (Egyptian). If we were just players and not refs at this point, we would book the course thats running in our area on Saturday, we'd travel together (walk) and we'd sit down next to each other. One of us would be charged £150, the other nothing. Both of us would find that preposterous. If I wasn't a current referee, and I suddenly decided I wanted to do the course and I saw adverts saying it's full price for me but not for someone else based on ethnicity or sex, I wouldn't apply.
If financial help is required for those who cannot afford the course, then that should be for everybody. Football should be for everybody and everybody is equal.
Yes, improved representation does improve unconscious bias in a group. The most discrimination tends to come from homogenous groups (see xenophobia in east Asia for example). It’s removing one barrier from a group that faces lots of other barriers that white people do not (lack of role models at PGMOL, racial stereotyping and abuse, societal racism that means they’re more likely to be impoverished or criminalised)
The issue here is the cost of referee courses for people, not tackling racism as a whole. Let's not go off on historical and societal tangents which we are all aware off concerning abuse etc.
James makes the point about redressing the ballance for those that feel they're on the wrong side of bias. So in this instance, that would be many non BAME people, particularly those who suffer from low income etc. They dont have access to something that someone else now does solely because of their ethnicity.
Back to my real world issue, or even a different one which will be very prevelant across the counties. 2 people from the same street apply for the course, one BAME, one white. £150 for you, £0 for you. If people think thats inclusive, fair, or in any way positive then I strongly disagree. Discrimation in any form causes division. Now if the FA wish to offer free courses for those from impoverished backgrounds (of any ethnicity or sex) then I'm all for it. Stick a voluntary extra £10 on our registrations to pay for it. But let's not discriminate against anyone based on ethnicity or sex.
So discriminating based on class is okay but not anything else?
Class? Who mentioned class? The issue here is an economic incentive which discrimates some people to the betterment of others. If the answer is an economic one (and clearly the counties think it is based on their policy), then let's focus on economic solutions that dont discriminate against anyone.
We're not going to agree, but i stand by the view that any discrimation enables division, and I am against any discrimination based on sex or ethnicity. I will not endorse one person getting to do the course over another based purely on ethnicity.
Oh so income then, where do you cut it off? 20k? 30?
And it’s not an issue of economics, although BAME communities are poorer, but rather barriers and they’re simply removing the one they have control over.
I don't think I actually said that explicitly, no.
I was answering the very specific point that I quoted.
History has shown that directly equal treatment creates inequality because bias exists. It means that when people are treat equally certain groups prosper as a direct consequence of unconscious biases. And these of course go beyond race. But that is a slightly different argument the case for cheaper courses.
The main reason for cheaper courses is to directly increase representation.
It's known fact that if referees are just a bunch of white men then other groups won't see it as a role for them and will see that as a barrier. However when those that aren't white men see other people with similar characteristics (gender/race/sexuality) etc. they are more likely to get involved.
A good example of how this works is shown by the growth of the women's game and then subsequent take up of girls playing the sport.
They've removed an economic barrier to refereeing for some, which keeps those barriers up for others.
Because those people face other barriers that the majority does not! There’s no shortage of working class white men in refereeing but in proportion to players we are massively underrepresented in BAME.
My experience as a player and referee is that refereeing is a much more old school institution and it’s inherently less accessible than playing.
I absolutely do not want a referee demographic of just white men. I want it to be for everyone. It is for everyone. Alot of white men are unhappy that they're the only demographic that doesn't qualify for free courses in some counties. They are unhappy that they're being discriminated against, and it's reasonable that they feel that way.
As for the point made regarding what the income cut off is, many benefits/taxes are done on income or indeed postcode. However it would be done, it is a much fairer system to do it on ability to pay than on ethnicity and sex. And as you mentioned, lower income areas often have a greater BAME demographic, so the required effect of increasing participation would still be met, just without discriminating other ethnicities.
Well ive played and refereed my entire life in Manchester, Sheffield & Bristol. I also played cricket in those cities for most of my life too. The biggest issue by far is that most people dont want to become a referee because of the abuse. Cricket has even worse issues with attracting BAME & women umpires, and thats not because of inclusion, its because of abuse and cricket umpiring has never been sold to people. Refereeing has been terrible at selling itself to anyone for lever now. Most older people take it up to give something back to the game, not because they are desperate to become a referee. People want to be footballers, and the participation figures reflect that.
Last edited:
Yes it does, at least in terms of how the law is written. Positive action is described as non-discriminatory, positive discrimination is discriminatory and illegal. You might not like it, and I can understand people having that view, but that is the law of the land and nothing to do with football and refereeing.
It's just effectively the human equivalent of retail discounting. If a supermarket can't shift a product they discount it, and those discounts vary based on the region and what people are buying. I live right in between one of the wealthiest areas in London and one of the poorest, and what you see on offer in supermarkets varies vastly between the two, they discount what isn't selling well. Are refereeing courses really any different, if a CFA in a specific region isn't getting people from specific backgrounds they will discount them?
- Status