The world has changed a great deal in the past forty years, and the rate of change continues to increase. Some of that change is for the better, and some is not.
As a very young child when forced to do something against my wishes, I would frequently utter the words “It’s not fair.” To which my late mother would reply, “Life’s not fair.” Occasionally in her irritation at my moaning she would add the words “get used to it.”
As harsh as those words seemed at the time she was right. Often life is not fair, and especially so in the sporting world.
There are any number of reasons why it may not be fair, but two of the key words to assess fairness are ‘opportunity’ and ‘prejudice.’
prejudice/ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs
noun 1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
verb1. give rise to prejudice in (someone); make biased.
If we look at every individual no matter what the colour of their skin, their religion, their country of birth, their sex, the club they play for or represent, all everyone wants is an equal opportunity. The same opportunity as the next person to prove their worth and their capabilities. They want an even contest. We all want that, as fans or as players. There is a feeling that in this day and age we should all expect that. Unfortunately human nature doesn’t work like that, life isn’t fair.
Whether we like it or not there is within all of us ‘unconscious bias.’ These are social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their own conscious awareness. They are not restricted to the colour of someone’s skin or their religion, they can relate to one’s age, gender, physical abilities, sexual orientation, weight, and many other characteristics that are subject to bias.
Ironically social media has made some of these biases, conscious or unconscious, far more obvious. We should not be surprised about that, after all Mark Zuckerberg, who created Facebook, started out in 2003 with FaceMash which was created to determine if Harvard students were “hot or not.” The website allowed visitors to the site to compare two female student pictures side by side and let them decide who was more attractive!
Is it therefore any wonder that we witness now on a daily basis negative, abusive and degrading comments targeting athletes, officials, public figures and normal every day people going about their daily lives. Some of it is truly despicable. While many use these platforms to try and promote a positive message the media and many others frequently only pick up on the negative comments and then retweet or repost them. Which surely exacerbates the situation?
These are clearly prejudices that are being aired. Prejudices that influence the thinking of others, and impact on the lives of many.
opportunity/ɒpəˈtjuːnɪti/
noun. a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something, a chance for employment or promotion.
When it comes to sport there are many athletes who have the opportunity to shine, some however are unfortunate to be born in the same era as another truly magnificent player.
Sir Donald Bradman is regarded as the greatest batsman to ever play the game of cricket. To many in Australia he is the greatest sportsman this country has ever produced. Had Bradman not arrived on the Cricket scene Australians may well have been extolling the performances of Bill Ponsford.
Ponsford has the fifth-highest batting average of all time after Bradman, Vijay Merchant, George Headley, and Ajay Sharma; So Ponsford is the highest Australian after Bradman. He scored four triple-hundreds, and is the only player to do so barring Bradman (6) and Wally Hammond (4) in First-Class cricket. He was the first batsman to score two quadruple-hundreds in First-Class cricket. Brian Lara later emulated that achievement.
He was unlucky to have played in the same era as Sir Donald, as many of his achievements have been forgotten. For example how many people are aware that the two players played six series together and in two of these Ponsford actually averaged more runs than Bradman? In Australia against the West Indies in 1930-31 he scored 467 at 77.83 compared to Bradman’s 447 at 74.50 and in the 1934 Ashes Series in England, which was his last series, he scored 569 at 94.83, just slightly higher than Bradman s 758 at 94.75.
So was there a prejudice against Ponsford? Certainly many from Victoria will claim that there was, as they back their man over Bradman who became an adopted New South Welshman. Had Ponsford been Asian or his skin a different colour some may have tried to claim prejudice, but their claims would have been unfounded. In this case there probably wasn’t any prejudice. Both men were given the same opportunities, one just captured the mood of the country at the time and out-performed the other. These were by all accounts two very different men, and Ponsford’s shyness may well have contributed to his achievements being pushed to the back of people’s minds while Bradman’s dominated.
There has been and always will be bias, as stated sometimes it is ‘conscious’ and sometimes it is ‘unconscious.’
Sticking with cricket, and this can be argued to suit your view or possibly where you come from. Whenever you ask who was the quickest player to take 100 Test Wickets and score 1000 Test runs most cricket fans will tell you that Sir Ian Botham is the answer. Botham achieved the feat in 21 matches over two years and 39 days. While India’s Kapil Dev achieved the same milestone in 25 Tests but in one year and 111 days. So not surprisingly in the sub continent Kapil Dev will often be the answer.
Many argue that the number of Test Matches should be the only measure, as one can only achieve such a milestone if one is playing. This would seem fair as some nations may have more opportunities to play more matches in a shorter period of time. Once more it comes down to opportunity. If it was purely based on the number of Test Matches played then Vinoo Mankad, whose name rarely comes up in such an argument would move into second place, as he took only 23 Test matches to achieve the milestone. Why are his achievements forgotten? Is that a case of prejudice?
The other thing that has to be taken into account with such statistics is the strength of the team in which these players are playing. Another Indian Ravichandran Ashwin is the fastest Test Cricketer to score 2000 runs and take 250 Test Wickets. It took him 51 Test matches compared to Sir Richard Hadlee’s 54 and Imran Khan and Sir Ian Botham taking 55 matches. Many have cited that Ashwin never had as many opportunities to bat due to the strength of India’s top order. Again this is a case of there being and opportunity and nothing to do with prejudice.
Of course there are also times when opportunities are denied to players. The reason it has been denied can be for a myriad of reasons. It can be as petty as where you went to school, or the suburb or city you live in. Frequently, even in this day and age it is because of the colour of your skin. Some people from certain backgrounds are victims of a conscious bias. They are stereotypically dismissed. They may be categorised as being lazy or indisciplined, and therefore because someone has formed that opinion others from that community are never given the same opportunity to show what they are capable of. Here we witness the worst forms of prejudice which result in a lack of opportunity.
There are many coaches who begrudge having to look at a player whose talent they have personally not identified. Rather than admit that they may have missed something, they opt to play the player out of position, thereby condemning them to fail to prove a point. Here again the player clearly suffers prejudice through no fault of their own. An opportunity is denied.
If however an off-spin bowler is invited to a trial at a club where they already have a strong off-spin bowler, and they are in fact looking for a medium-pace bowler and a wicket-keeper. This is not a case of prejudice, but one of opportunity. Essentially no opportunity existed. However had they proved to have an outstanding talent the club may well have found room to accommodate them. Yet in realistic terms the club invited them to trial as they wanted to make sure that they were not missing out on a future star player. In this case there was no opportunity and no prejudice.
At the turn of the last century football in Brazil was still regarded as being for the elite, and a white man’s sport. Yet the game’s popularity spread rapidly to the masses, many of whom were former slaves. Brazil after all had been the last country in the Western World to do away with slavery in 1888. Not surprisingly there were many talented players who came from the non-elite, and many were of mixed race. As talented as some of these players were we are told that the general consensus was that the others who played and watched the game were not ready for black players.
Arthur Friedenreich was one such player, and in Brazilian football history was one of the greatest players that nation has produced before Pele. His father was a German businessman and his mother African-Brazilian, the daughter of freed slaves. Being of mixed race he faced many barriers because of racism. He could not attend the same places where white players were, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and join them at parties. His father, like many father’s encouraged him to play football and helped him develop his game. He is in Brazil regarded by many as the creator of ‘jogo bonito’ or ‘the beautiful game’ for which Brazil is now famous.
He made his debut against Exter City in Brazil’s first ever game which they won 2-0. He would remember it for two other reasons, he lost his two front teeth! It was far from rosy being a mixed race or black player during these times. Friedenreich and other players like him would straighten their hair and put rice powder on their skin in order to try and lighten their appearance and make themselves look more European. In 1923 when Vasco de Gama won the Championship with a mixed race team, the following season the League banned mixed race teams! It took until 1938 and the performance of Leonidas at the World Cup, where he was voted player of the tournament, to be the turning point for non-white players in Brazil.
Here was not only prejudice, but also a case of limited opportunity. Times that have hopefully changed today.
There have been many players who have broken down barriers across many sports, In the USA. Athletes who were victims of prejudice and a lack of opportunity. There was Jackie Robinson in Baseball, Joe Gans and Jack Johnson in boxing. George Poage became the first African American to participate in the Olympic Games, and the first to win a medal in 1904 at St Louis in the USA.He won bronze in the 220 yards and the 400 yard hurdles, ironically he achieved this at an Olympic Games where the crowd was racially segregated!
In England Arthur Wharton was the world’s first black professional footballer back in the late 1880’s yet for the best part of a century his name was forgotten. He was also the World Record holder in the 100 yard dash, but again that was hidden for years because of the colour of his skin. Frank Soo, who was of Chinese heritage, played for the England wartime team and remains the only player of East Asian heritage to have done so. Yet few have every heard of him. Is that prejudice? Or is it more a case of education?
In Australia Harry Williams was the first Aboriginal footballer to play at a World Cup Finals, Bridgette Starr was the first female to achieve that feat, and Kyah Simon the first Aboriginal of either sex to score at a World Cup finals.
All of those listed had to overcome prejudice to obtain the opportunity that came their way. Opportunities that all of the seized to prove not only that they were as good as the next person, but better. That is why we should remember all of them and many more across many sports, for being the first. For breaking down that barrier, creating opportunities for others and in some way reducing the prejudices that exist. They are the people that can and will inspire those who feel prejudice that that they too can overcome and succeed.
Whether we like it or not and no matter how many branded match days we have for minority groups there will sadly always be some form of prejudice.(Counting The Days) What we need the sports to start doing is to create more opportunities for everyone. If you create more opportunities you will in time slowly reduce the incidents of prejudice; but they will still exist.
In many cases creating those opportunities lies within the junior programs and clubs themselves being more welcoming to people from diverse backgrounds. Watch most children playing and they do not see another child’s skin-colour as an issue, and they definitely have no concept of their religion or many of the other issues that will later result in prejudice.
Clubs should no longer be based around a religion, and those of a different faith forced to witness limited opportunities. Some clubs still carry that legacy of years gone by, where there is an underlying subconscious bias that permeates the club. Prejudice may not be obvious, but it is there, and the opportunities to those of a different faith are not.
While some clubs still have a strong connection to a certain faith, due to the origins of the club and hundreds of years of history, most realise that times have changed. After all it was 31 years ago this week that the first Catholic, former Celtic player Mo Johnston signed for their Protestant cross town rivals, Rangers.
Opportunities should not come in the guise of a quota system as there is in South Africa. As such a system builds resentment, it also has those who are part of the quota questioning whether they are there on merit or to literally make up the numbers. While the Quota system was understandable when the apartheid regime came to an end in 1996 it is no longer valid, and is arguably now doing more harm than good to South African sport. Having spoken to athletes from this sport-loving country nearly all agreed with a possible quota in terms of squads, all stated that it should not apply when it came to selecting a team. All agreed that the best players should be picked to represent that particular team. To continue to have a quota system 26 years on is a new form of prejudice. It is supposedly there to create opportunity, but sticking to the system for nearly three decades it is one that is now reducing the opportunities for a section of the community rather than creating them. (Will the World Cup Be The Catalyst for Change in South Africa?)
Sadly we are witnessing quotas coming into all areas of the sporting landscape now. With a points allocation to players based on their age and loyalty to a club, we are witnessing a new form of prejudice.
There has been a knee jerk reaction to try and appease all. Positions are being given to people in order to tick a box, or to avoid being accused of having an ‘unconscious’ or ‘conscious bias,’ or of being clearly prejudiced. By taking such a stance, these organisations are in fact guilty of prejudice. For suddenly many who have worked hard for decades to establish knowledge, skills and a reputation are cast aside for someone with no experience simply to avoid conflict. Of course maybe they do feel that there were no opportunities for all, maybe there was prejudice, in which case the change is good. However if the organisation believes that it’s decisions can be backed up, and that they based their decisions on who they felt was the best irrespective of sex, skin colour, religion or any other box, then it should have the courage to stand by those decisions. To not do so and make a choice simply to avoid accusations of prejudice, and in turn deny the best is in itself a dangerous path to choose.
Clearly change in many sporting spheres has to happen, and we have to see more opportunities being created and the number of prejudices reduced. Clubs need to be guided as to how they go about such change, as it is an education process. Without education, and without listening to both sides a satisfactory outcome is never going to be reached. The reason being that many do not realise that they have an ‘unconscious bias.’
Yet clearly such a thing exists. The Australian National University found when it looked into the labour market in Australia and discrimination against ethnic minorities that applicants with Chinese names were least likely to be invited for an interview, despite their strong work ethic. They had just a one-in-five chance of an interview, while the chances of applicants with Anglo-Saxon names exceeded one-in-three. Similar situations arise in sport based on many of the other factors previously mentioned.
The truth is sport and life are not fair. Every effort should be made to reduce prejudice and increase opportunity, but at times it will still not be fair. Even if you get your opportunity you can be robbed of victory due to an injury, fate, the weather or an umpire’s decision.
I have been privileged to have had a great many opportunities in life, but even though I have been so fortunate I have found that there will always be prejudice, the key is acknowledging it and finding a way to move on.
The great after-dinner speaker former All Black Eric Rush probably sums the situation up best. He tells the tale of how he was overlooked every year for junior representative teams in New Zealand. The reasons why he doesn’t go into, but he never lost faith that he was good enough, and eventually he proved that to be the case. Through all those years of disappointment, his father kept him going with words that stayed with him, “it is only one man’s opinion.” One man made that call, and in his opinion you were not good enough, another may think differently. Eventually someone did.
Were those decisions fair? Cleary to Rush they were not. Was there prejudice in the opinions of the men who failed to select him? Maybe, we will never know. However did Rush have an opportunity to prove them wrong? When that opportunity came did he take it?
Look around your club and ask yourself are all welcome?
Prejudice most likely will always be there conscious or subconscious, while opportunities are not. Is that fair?
No, that’s life, but we can reduce the incidents of prejudice, and one of the best ways is to focus on creating more opportunities for all.
