Racial Bias in Football Commentary

[Catfish Blues]

It's a ridiculously flawed study to provoke something that isn't there.

I've just read it, and it is indeed flawed.

To really see how much subconcious bias there is in commentaries, you'd need to adjust for the realities of the players in the game. So, for example, DCL is undoubtebly fast and hard working, as is Richarlison ( not as fast as DCL, but no slouch ). So you'd expect them to be mentioned as such in a commentary. Then you need to find similar pale skinned strikers with the same attributes and see if they got mentioned as being fast and strong as well.

Then you need to look properly at the players skill levels to make a judgement as to how much praise you'd expect them to get compared to reality and adjust accordingly

I'm sure there will be subconcious bias at play in commentaries, most of us have some degree of bias, but that paper isn't great. It would be interesting if someone with a bit more nouse and understanding than the author had a look a the subject more thoroughly, because there's doubtless some important lessons to be learnt, but it seems like an opportunity missed.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I've just read it, and it is indeed flawed.

To really see how much subconcious bias there is in commentaries, you'd need to adjust for the realities of the players in the game. So, for example, DCL is undoubtebly fast and hard working, as is Richarlison ( not as fast as DCL, but no slouch ). So you'd expect them to be mentioned as such in a commentary. Then you need to find similar pale skinned strikers with the same attributes and see if they got mentioned as being fast and strong as well.

Then you need to look properly at the players skill levels to make a judgement as to how much praise you'd expect them to get compared to reality and adjust accordingly

I'm sure there will be subconcious bias at play in commentaries, most of us have some degree of bias, but that paper isn't great. It would be interesting if someone with a bit more nouse and understanding than the author had a look a the subject more thoroughly, because there's doubtless some important lessons to be learnt, but it seems like an opportunity missed.

As I said to someone else, this doesn't explain the intelligence part. I think that's the one part anyone who says "well of course they say the players who are fast are fast" are missing.

 

[kenada_blue]

I've just read it, and it is indeed flawed.

To really see how much subconcious bias there is in commentaries, you'd need to adjust for the realities of the players in the game. So, for example, DCL is undoubtebly fast and hard working, as is Richarlison ( not as fast as DCL, but no slouch ). So you'd expect them to be mentioned as such in a commentary. Then you need to find similar pale skinned strikers with the same attributes and see if they got mentioned as being fast and strong as well.

Then you need to look properly at the players skill levels to make a judgement as to how much praise you'd expect them to get compared to reality and adjust accordingly

I'm sure there will be subconcious bias at play in commentaries, most of us have some degree of bias, but that paper isn't great. It would be interesting if someone with a bit more nouse and understanding than the author had a look a the subject more thoroughly, because there's doubtless some important lessons to be learnt, but it seems like an opportunity missed.

100%

The word is context. Needs to be more in-depth than what they've put together

 

[kenada_blue]

As I said to someone else, this doesn't explain the intelligence part. I think that's the one part anyone who says "well of course they say the players who are fast are fast" are missing.

Again, that is purely down to the context of where it was used and how the word "intelligence" was defined.

Was their a black player who made an "intelligent" run not get called intelligent but a white player doing exactly the same thing did?

There were more white players in the study. So if there's say 5 white players and 2 black players for eg you've a better advantage to use said word more towards the higher number you're studying. Then take into consideration what position did they play? If they're all creative midfielders (arguably the key position on football for intelligence) then what did said players do or past history in the game made them come to that conclusion.

That is only a handful of attributes not considered in the study. Mainly due to it being a very basic view of "black v white"

 

[Catfish Blues]

As I said to someone else, this doesn't explain the intelligence part. I think that's the one part anyone who says "well of course they say the players who are fast are fast" are missing.

That's true, but you need to dig deeper though mate.

I've no idea what the reality of the situation is, but maybe there are more fair skinned players playing in positions which allow them to do things which are marked up as being intelligent, which would plainly skew the results ?

I don't doubt that predominately white middle aged commentators will be being biased, but, if a study of players in, for example, play making positions showed they were more likely to be fair skinned ( when looking at the overall percentages of players ), then, as well as there being commentator bias, you'd also be potentially looking at combinations of coaching bias at a young age, role models and underlying physical attributes.

It's quite lazy to pick on one thing ( commentators bias ) and write a paper concentrating on that without looking at the bigger picture. McLoughlin's a computer scientist by trade, and he might have some background in statistical analysis, but, if he does, he's not showing it in that paper.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Again, that is purely down to the context of where it was used and how the word "intelligence" was defined.

Was their a black player who made an "intelligent" run not get called intelligent but a white player doing exactly the same thing did?

There were more white players in the study. So if there's say 5 white players and 2 black players for eg you've a better advantage to use said word more towards the higher number you're studying. Then take into consideration what position did they play? If they're all creative midfielders (arguably the key position on football for intelligence) then what did said players do or past history in the game made them come to that conclusion.

That is only a handful of attributes not considered in the study. Mainly due to it being a very basic view of "black v white"

Well you know that's the exact thing we are looking for.

Anyway I'm not saying this is a perfect study but I'm fascinated by the rush to pick holes in it.

 

[kenada_blue]

Well you know that's the exact thing we are looking for.

Anyway I'm not saying this is a perfect study but I'm fascinated by the rush to pick holes in it.

There's still more context behind the commentary than just a simple basic view which it clearly doesn't take into consideration.

There's no rush to pick holes in it. The holes are just there to see especially when trying to make a serious point.

 

[TheBigIguana]

That's true, but you need to dig deeper though mate.

I've no idea what the reality of the situation is, but maybe there are more fair skinned players playing in positions which allow them to do things which are marked up as being intelligent, which would plainly skew the results ?

I don't doubt that predominately white middle aged commentators will be being biased, but, if a study of players in, for example, play making positions showed they were more likely to be fair skinned ( when looking at the overall percentages of players ), then, as well as there being commentator bias, you'd also be potentially looking at combinations of coaching bias at a young age, role models and underlying physical attributes.

It's quite lazy to pick on one thing ( commentators bias ) and write a paper concentrating on that without looking at the bigger picture. McLoughlin's a computer scientist by trade, and he might have some background in statistical analysis, but, if he does, he's not showing it in that paper.

Again it is fascinating to me that in one post someone can say that it would make sense for there to be racial bias and then also say that it might actually be this, that and the other. But this is pretty similar to what's going on with the larger issues in society right now so I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[coollino]

probably more lazy than anything. You notice it at the world cup a lot. Eastern Europe, South America, Asia get it as well.

Pretty much everyone but central Europe, Brazil and Argentina.

It's the panel bagging it because they do not have a clue.

 

[mmmmsnouts]

Which has nothing to do with skin colour.

And nowhere near the level of negativity towards Siggurdson and Gomes.

Again, context of the negativity is purely football focused and not racial.

Schneiderlin got absolutely slated on here for two years straight for his bad attitude and terrible form. Anyway, using one of the match threads here for any kind of rational analysis is a bad idea, those things are always overrun with bedwetters and people say questionable things out of pure anger that they wouldn’t say normally

 

[Catfish Blues]

Again it is fascinating to me that in one post someone can say that it would make sense for there to be racial bias and then also say that it might actually be this, that and the other. But this is pretty similar to what's going on with the larger issues in society right now so I can't say I'm surprised.

There's two points

1. Do commentators exhibit subconcious racial bias, to which I'm sure the answer is yes

and

2. How much do they exhibit that bias, and this paper, because it's been written by someone who doesn't really seem to understand how to analyse the data, fails in that respect.

If you're going to measure something then you need to measure it properly, otherwise, if you repeat the exercise in the future, you won't be able to determine if anything's changed or not.

On larger issues, those larger issues include how BAME athletes and sportspeople are treated as they come through schoolage. If you ignore the possibility that they might be getting channeled into "fast and strong" areas, then you risk concentrating on one area at the expense of another. If you just want to concentrate on commentators, that's fine, there's plainly work to do there, but just concentrating on commentators misses so much more.

 

[WA Toffee]

It's a great topic for a study, and I am sure it will pave the way for further deeper analysis. On it's own, it doesn't really prove anything, but it is a start

 

[Papa Shango]

But complimenting a player on an attribute such as speed isn’t racist, and if you think it is then you are mental. Again, it would be interesting to see how this absolute BS research would work with rugby.

This is absolute BS research that has found its way on to an online shop that sells sportswear. The author of the ‘research’ works for the online retailer. I don’t see it getting published in any peer-reviewed academic journal any time soon.

It’s just utter bollox!

The issue is certain players being cast as just being "fast" or "powerful" as their only defining trait.

It happens a lot really, I remember people last year saying Zouma is fast, he really isn't but it was just assumed he was.

This type of thing is in the same ballpark as Lukaku not being happy about the big knob stuff. "It's a compliment though!" etc.

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

I find from reading this forum, other forums, Twitter and from conversations with supporters that this conclusion isn't exactly surprising. It's just a way of putting numbers on it a bit more so maybe people will try to not do it so much.

Try not to do exactly what so much? Have an unconscious bias? Sounds even more nonsensical than your average football commentary to be honest. Perhaps you would prefer it if they had a conscious bias and over-compensated for their supposed unconscious bias? Perhaps if people stopped looking for problems that may or may not exist (but finding them anyway regardless) then this feeding of resentment might stop.

 

[arch stanton]

the bias also has a grounding in that most commentators are walking talking cliches so these things self perpetuate. However I'm sure there is underlying and more overt racism in the game.