Racism in Football

[Michael]

53 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I mean there's response bias also in questions like "would you like a neighbor of another race," especially in countries where being a bigot is socially unacceptable to a lot of people and even bigots know that. That can play into whether or not people are responding to the surveys truthfully. If they aren't convinced by the anonymity of the survey, they'll be more inclined to lie. There's also this survey, which tbh I don't know anything about the methodology other than the number of responses (which isn't great, because typically you're hoping for a sample size of at least 100 for any kind of statistical significance... and for this survey they're teetering around 100 for most of the surveyed countries.

But I also think the question they asked is less likely to invoke response bias from people in the west: https://www.indexmundi.com/surveys/results/8

And just looking at around the top of that list, I feel like that actually makes more sense. You've got South Africa which has struggled with racism for... fucking ages... even in a post-Apartheid world. You've got South American countries that have huge racial divides and inequity between the majority of their population & indigenous people. There's Afghanistan where the Taliban have been pushing Pashtun supremacy for as long as the Taliban has been a thing, aside from the other religious bullshit they push. There's Saudi Arabia which doesn't surprise me based off my own anecdotal experience. And a few of the big developed western countries that have had noted significant racial issues as well. The thing I'm most surprised about is China not being in the top 5, tbh, but again that's also probably just because of my anecdotal experience. 

I think we'll struggle to find an accurate survey that really tells us which people are the "most racist" - it's the type of survey that's going to be inherently flawed from the get-go imo because it is so hard to remove response bias. And you'd need to get pretty large samples from most (if not all) countries in the world.

Either way, my initial point was very much about what we see on social media regarding football players experiencing racism. And honestly with social media & English language racial abuse, we're mostly going to find the racists racially abusing players are in the Anglosphere and other English speakers in the developed world. 

In countries where being a bigot is socially unacceptable? Being a bigot and a racist should be unacceptable in all countries. If it's generally acceptable to be a bigot and a racist in a certain country, then that country must be a very racist country.

If the survey you've given is around 100 people sampled per country, I don't think that is near enough to be honest. The survey I linked, although it didn't survey every country in the world, it at least had almost half the countries around the world. They surveyed around what averaged out to be 1,090 people per country. Which I think can give you a much more accurate and representative result, than in a survey that has asked questions to a mere 100 people or less. 

[Spike]

2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Honestly to me it makes perfect sense that developing nations with hostile history with their neighbors are the most racist. It shouldn't even be close imo. 

I think people just don’t want to feel like they are talking shit from their ivory tower. Rocks in glass houses and all that

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

In countries where being a bigot is socially unacceptable? Being a bigot and a racist should be unacceptable in all countries. If it's generally acceptable to be a bigot and a racist in a certain country, then that country must be a very racist country.

If the survey you've given is around 100 people sampled per country, I don't think that is near enough to be honest. The survey I linked, although it didn't survey every country in the world, it at least had almost half the countries around the world. They surveyed around what averaged out to be 1,090 people per country. Which I think can give you a much more accurate and representative result, than in a survey that has asked questions to a mere 100 people or less. 

Being a bigot in a lot of countries is socially acceptable, unfortunately. I agree with you it shouldn’t be, but we also live in a world where “fuck your race” is a socially acceptable insult in a big Western European nation. I think that’s pretty fucking racist. In the caucuses, the ethnic hatred between Armenians & Turks is massive & the way they publicly talk about each other is honestly appalling.

By the same token if we don’t ever think racism is acceptable in the UK… then how the fuck do we explain the racial abuse we see come from the UK. There are a lot more people who think bigotry is socially acceptable than you’ve said.

I agree with you in an ideal world it should never be allowed… but the world’s an absolutely fucked place. And there’s a disgusting amount of racism out in it. Even in countries where racism is largely frowned upon.

100 people is what most people who work with stats would consider the bare minimum to get statistical significance from a country. I agree with you the studies you posted took better sample sizes. I also think some of the questions posed lead to biases.

[Stan]

7 hours ago, Michael said:

Well yeah, a survey of this scale is going to have its limitations. Yes, they've selected 78 countries, and I believe that we can make a general judgement of the results from these 78 countries. 85,000 people from these 78 countries, that's like 1,090 people surveyed per country. I believe it's enough to get a gist of what the general attitudes of people are in these countries. 

I'm not sure I can agree with this. 

Approx 1000 people per country is a very tiny amount. And then tarring that country with a whole brush of 'you're a racist country' is unfair. Because that's fundamentally what it's doing. 

Take Netherlands. 17.5m population. 1000 people surveyed in that country is only approx less than 1%. Are you telling me that % of people is a fair reflective and representative sample of the whole country?! 

[Beelzebub]

Places with incessant history of civil war fall more into tribalism than racism. Almost the same people with minor differences like sect or dialect have tribal fueds which makes them quite bellicose in general.

If you go to Belfast and ask the average guy can I be your neighbour ? I'm pretty sure you'll get a hostile response at first.

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 hours ago, Stan said:

I'm not sure I can agree with this. 

Approx 1000 people per country is a very tiny amount. And then tarring that country with a whole brush of 'you're a racist country' is unfair. Because that's fundamentally what it's doing. 

Take Netherlands. 17.5m population. 1000 people surveyed in that country is only approx less than 1%. Are you telling me that % of people is a fair reflective and representative sample of the whole country?! 

That's a big enough sample size to get statistical significance for sure. Doesn't mean there aren't necessarily flaws with the sampling selection - if they're just getting 1000 samples from one city that's a flaw, for sure, and I don't have that info. But that's certainly a big enough sample size. The "ideal" sample size really is on a case-by-case basis, there's no set standard & there are a lot of variables.

[Stan]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's a big enough sample size to get statistical significance for sure. Doesn't mean there aren't necessarily flaws with the sampling selection - if they're just getting 1000 samples from one city that's a flaw, for sure, and I don't have that info. But that's certainly a big enough sample size. The "ideal" sample size really is on a case-by-case basis, there's no set standard & there are a lot of variables.

Really? It's tiny! 

[Mel81x+]

35 minutes ago, Stan said:

Really? It's tiny! 

Think it works on law of percentages vs true size. 1000 in some of those countries amounts to varying percentages against the rest. For all we know it was 2K in one country 500 in the next to balance it all out.

[Dr. Gonzo]

46 minutes ago, Stan said:

Really? It's tiny! 

Yeah, there's an argument that using sample sizes that are too high is unnecessary/inefficient for research - as well as arguably unethical (and conversely, using sample sizes that are too small is considered unscientific and unethical). But there's a few things to consider when you need to determine the sample size of a survey: 1.) population size; 2.) the confidence interval (the margin of error you're allowing for in the survey - a lot of the time with surveys you see online it's a margin of error of + or - 5%); 3.) the confidence level (how confident you are that the actual mean of the results falls into the confidence level; 4.) the standard deviation (a lower standard deviation means the values will be clustered around the mean, a high standard deviation means they're spread across a wider range) - when you haven't yet run a survey, don't know what your standard deviation's going to be... .5 is what's used on a lot of surveys.

In statistics there's something called a z-score you use for formulas trying to take your confidence level and plug it into a formula to get the required sample size. For a 95% confidence level (with that +/- 5% margin of error I mentioned) the z-score = 1.96.

There's a few different formulas you can use to determine a sample size. One common one is Cochran's formula, which is:

necessary sample size = (z-score)² x Standard deviation x (1-standard deviation) / (margin of error)² , so plugging all that shite I talked mentioned above

necessary sample size = (1.96)²  x .5(.5) / (.05)² ... (3.8416 x .25) / .0025.... .9604/.0025... 384.16

And since you can't sample .16 of a person, the necessary sample size is 385. 

Then there's a correction formula for Cochran's formula for "small populations", which is:

adjusted necessary sample size = the necessary sample size we got above / 1 + (necessary sample size from above - 1)/size of population being sampled.

So filling in those variables with the Netherlands' population (which you'll see, we don't really need to do because the Netherlands does not have a small population)

adjusted sample size = 385 / 1+ (384/17.5m)... 385 / 1 + ( .00002194)... so 385/1.00002194... 384.991553

& since we can't sample .99 of a person, that's 385.

It's important to note that statistical significance is not always the same as research significance (though they can be related) and there are a lot of variables that go into whether a sampled population is considered quality or not.

Apologies for the random statistics lesson!

[LFCMike]

 

[Eco]

19 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

 

It's insane.

I heard a small select of people mentioned with his dancing, that he's asking for it.

F*ck off I say, and I hope Vini dances away. People will always find a way to hate you and so if he were to stop, they just find something else they'd not like about him, and yet swear that they aren't 'racist'.

Pricks.

I'm glad La Liga is really taking this serious, and putting in extra effort to find those that are yelling things at Vini, and prosecuting those that are guilty. They already found the main culprit at Mallorca, and luckily that jackass is facing criminal charges.

[Tommy]

33 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

 

I just saw that on Facebook. What the hell was that question? I like how you can see Klopp processing what he just heard, and the more it sunk in, the more baffled he got. 

[Stan]

31 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I just saw that on Facebook. What the hell was that question? I like how you can see Klopp processing what he just heard, and the more it sunk in, the more baffled he got. 

Who's the prick asking the question? 

Klopp's facial reaction is exactly what I did. Just sheer bemusement blended in with confusion and basically 'wtf'. 

[Mel81x+]

3 hours ago, LFCMike said:

 

The lengths some people will go to for a rise. Sorry, can't remember that Leicester manager who had a similar question thrown at him and that response was apt as is Klopp's response too. Sometimes journalists don't know where to draw the line. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, LFCMike said:

 

Wtf was that a journo fishing to get a manager to endorse racist behavior?

[Stan]

Napoli's official account. Absolutely obscene. 

 

 

[Tommy]

18 hours ago, Stan said:

Napoli's official account. Absolutely obscene. 

 

 

What the hell. Absolutely bizarre. 

[Stan]

Quote

 

Rochdale head groundsman Joshua Haigh has been suspended for six weeks after being found guilty of racially abusing a member of the media.

An independent regulatory commission found Haigh guilty of an "aggravated breach" of Football Association Rule E3.

The commission said his behaviour in the incident after February's game against Stockport was "appalling".

Haigh, who denied the charge, has the right to appeal against the ruling.

The commission stated he must take an FA education course and pay £2,000 towards the commission's costs, while he has also been warned as to his future conduct.

His ban runs up to and including 20 November.

Haigh and the reporter initially exchanged words when the latter walked across the pitch to the tunnel at Spotland to conduct post-match interviews. Haigh was unhappy that the complainant was doing so, despite the fact others had done the same and there were children playing on the pitch at the time.

The groundsman then confronted the reporter for a second time as he looked to leave the ground, and it is then that the abuse is said to have taken place.

The commission concluded that Haigh was not a "credible witness" and that "on the balance of probabilities" he was guilty of the offence

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67147218

[Stan]

Quote

 

A Crystal Palace fan has received a three-year ban from football for racially abusing Tottenham and South Korea forward Son Heung-min.

Robert Garland pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harassment in August after shouting and gesturing towards Son in May.

He was initially sentenced to 60 hours of unpaid work and fined £1,384.

However, Spurs and the Metropolitan Police appealed to the UK Football Policing Unit over the sentence.

"The Metropolitan Police, supported by the club, approached the UK Football Policing Unit to seek an appeal against the sentence and, as a direct result, the court issued the supporter with a three-year football banning order," Tottenham said in a statement on Wednesday.

"We thank the police for their cooperation on the matter. We should like to reiterate that the club does not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will always seek for the strongest possible action to be taken against those found responsible."

Garland, 44, made the racial gesture after Son was substituted in the 89th minute during Tottenham's 1-0 home win over Crystal Palace on 6 May 2023.

Son told the police that he did "nothing to be targeted with this horrible racist and discriminatory behaviour", according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Kevin Christie from the CPS added: "This case shows that hate crime at football will not be tolerated.

"Garland's actions were rightly condemned on social media and we call on all fans to carry on calling out any form of discriminatory behaviour against players or fans to the police or stewards so we can take cases like this to court."

The Premier League said it "welcomed" the banning order, which means Garland will not be able to go to any regulated match for three years and will need to surrender his passport when international fixtures are scheduled.

"It is vital that those found guilty of discriminatory behaviour are held to account, and this punishment sends a clear message that action will be taken and there are consequences," the Premier League said in a statement on Tuesday.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67356385

[Devil-Dick Willie]

60 hours of unpaid work and a $1400 fine is a death sentence to a working class Englishman hahaha
Unfortunately it's nothing at all to the middle class.

[Tommy]

 

[Stan]

 

 

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, Stan said:

 

 

And there's kids around who seem to follow her behaviour. Sad. 

[Tommy]

[Stan]

Sticking it in here because there's most definitely an undertone of racism about it...