The Premier League was fired after vacancies at top clubs, including Manchester United and Liverpool, stated that only ethnic minority candidates and women can apply – a movement that, according to some, infringes the laws of the equality.
The controversy focuses on a scheme that was funded by the competition to stimulate representation in full -time coaching positions. Known as the Coach Inclusion and Diversity Scheme (CIDs), the initiative was launched four seasons ago and is intended to tackle the under -representation of certain groups in professional football.
According to the Premier League, the scheme is aimed at increasing the number of female coaches and male black, Asian and mixed heritage coaches with different backgrounds in full -time coaching positions in English Professional football '.
But the way in which that goal has been implemented has set an alarm – in particular in vacancies, discovered by De Telegraaf, who explicitly limit who can apply.
A list of Manchester United, which advertises for a 23-month youth coaching role, states: 'Coaches currently under-represented in the English professional game individuals of black, Asian and mixed heritage backgrounds, including women from all backgrounds.
'This is a positive action schedule that is aimed at tackling under -represented groups in football coaching. Applications are only accepted from people with those backgrounds. '
Similarly, Liverpool's advertisement is for a similar role: “We will only consider coaches who are currently under-represented in the English professional game individuals of black, Asian and mixed heritage backgrounds, including women from all backgrounds.”
The formulation that is used in both cases has also been published in recruitment advertisements posted by a number of other clubs – including Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa, Everton, Newcastle United, West Ham United, Leicester City, Brighton & Bournemouth, together with Championship sides.
Some clubs have said that the language came from a pre -aged template of the competition, which they claim has been changed since then. Updated versions, they say, no longer contain statements that explicitly forbid white men to apply.
Ipswich Town and Fulham have used the revised version, although Ipswich has removed its advertisement after internal assessment. Sources told Telegraph Sport that the advertisement had been withdrawn because of concern about 'poorly formulated' content. Liverpool is expected to post a new advertisement soon using the updated format.
The Premier League states that the scheme is open to members of the Professional Football players 'Association (PFA) at every level, but also notes:' Non-PFA members can also apply, as long as they are a coach as a black, Asian or mixed-election background, they have a minimal coaching-qualification in UEFA-Varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-varing-vainging-vainging-vainging-vainging-vainging-vainging-vainging-Valing-Caating have reached football foot '.
The issue is whether some advertisements cross the line from legal positive action to positive discrimination, which is forbidden under the Equality Act 2010.
According to the guidance of Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC): 'It is not illegal to tackle disadvantage or under -representation by encouraging groups that share a certain protected feature to request vacancies. This is called positive action. Positive action is legal if it is reasonable to think that people with a certain protected feature are or are confronted with a disadvantage and the action taken will tackle this and will be proportional.
'If an employer wants to take positive action in this way, the advertisement must state clearly that the employer is looking for requests from everyone, but wants to request requests from people with a certain protected characteristic based on the fact that he is under -represented or has a backlog.
'Positive action in recruitment can only be used to make people of protected characteristic groups aware of recruitment options and to encourage them to request a job. It cannot be used to limit the opportunity to work to someone with a certain protected feature or lead to an applicant being treated more favorably during the recruitment process because they have a protected characteristic. However, if the two best candidates for a job are equally qualified, the candidate of a disadvantaged or under -represented group may be preferred for the job if this is a proportional means to tackle the disadvantage or increase the participation of the group. '
The return has not only been legal – political figures have also weighed. Rupert Lowe, an independent MP for Great Yarmouth and former chairman of Southampton, condemned the advertisements as 'disgusting anti-white racism'
Although the scheme is aimed at tackling long -term diversity in English football, the formulation of the advertisements – in particular the outright exclusion of some applicants – has ruled the debate on how far organizations can go in the pursuit of representative goals.
The Premier League has been approached for comment.