PFA study finds racial bias in football commentary – time to kick it out
- RunRepeat and PFA study proves players with darker skin tones more likely to be criticised for intelligence and versatility
- Only 5 per cent of in-game commentary teams they studied were non-white – and that should change
“I ask you, can you get any more Belizean than that?”
That’s the punchline to a sketch on BBC Radio 4 comedy John Finnemore’s Souvenir Programme, where two football commentators describe the action from a penalty shoot-out defining each participant by their nationalities.
Northern Europeans are all clinical efficiency – “standing still now with all the clinical efficiency of a particularly efficient clinic” – while Italians and South Americans are flamboyant and passionate – “not quite as efficient as Romera’s passionate save was passionate”.
They are then stumped by Belize, with confusion as to whether it is in South America or one of “the little ones in Europe”. Ergo, hedged bets in the commentary box.
“With clinical flamboyance, he takes the shot … And he scores … What a penalty. Passionate in that he kicked it hard and efficient that it went in the goal.”
As with all the best jokes it rings true, while proving that bias in commentary is widely known – Finnemore is not a football fan, for instance – and some would say so deep rooted that it is beyond parody.
That does not mean we should not try. New York-based podcast producer Rose Eveleth did just that for the 2018 Fifa World Cup, making a “How Bad Announcers Talk About Black Players & African Teams Bingo” that skewered the lazy tropes they rely on.
Widely known as it might be, it is not widely studied in football. Until now.
As the game finds itself in the same position as every other industry in re-examining its structural biases because of the Black Lives Matter movement, comes a timely study from Danish research firm RunRepeat, in partnership with the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA).
The study took in 20 games each from the English Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, Italy’s Serie A and France’s Ligue 1 this season. It limited itself to English-language commentaries to avoid translation issues, seven broadcasters – Sky Sports, BT Sport, FreeSports, beIN Sports, TSN, NBCSN and ESPN – and in-game commentary not studio pundits.
Some 2,073 statements divided into 11 categories were made about 643 players, each of whom had been assigned a skin-tone value between 1-20 based on the Football Manager 2020 database. Those values were split between lighter skin tone (1-11) and darker skin tone (12-20).
This is where things got interesting. “When talking about intelligence, versatility and quality, commentators praise players with lighter skin tone and criticise players with darker skin tone,” the report said.
“Taking intelligence as an example, 62.6 per cent of praise was directed towards players with lighter skin tone. This flips when criticising players for their intelligence, where 63.33 per cent of the criticism is directed at players with darker skin tone.
“To address the real impact of structural racism, we have to acknowledge and address racial bias. This study shows an evident bias in how we describe the attributes of footballers based on their skin colour,” PFA equalities executive (and former Nottingham Forest striker) Jason Lee said.
To deal with this there are two things that we need: more studies into the extent of the problem and, more importantly, more diversity in the commentary box.
Other sports are streets ahead in studying the problem. Research in this field for the NFL dates back to the 1970s and a 1977 study, Extent of Covert Racial Prejudice in Pro Football Announcers’ Speech.
Another study in the 1990s, Color Blind-sided: Racial Bias in Network Television’s Coverage of Professional Football Games, found that commentators were more likely to praise white players for intellect and black players for their physical prowess.
The last of them was referenced by RunRepeat, as were Rada & Wulfemeyer’s Color-Coded: Racial Descriptors in Television Coverage of Intercollegiate Sports (2005) and Eastman & Billings’ Biased Voices of Sports: Racial and Gender Stereotyping in College Basketball Announcing (2001).
While US-centric studies go from college level to the pros – one in 2014 looked at the NFL draft while another in 2019 used AI and “big data” to analyse bias – there remain too few for the world game.
That needs to change, as do some of those in the commentary box to address not only what is being said but who is saying it. The study noted that 5 per cent of the commentators and co-commentators were from a BAME (Black and Minority Ethnic) background.
That is a problem that all of the unconscious bias training and best intentions in the world cannot change. Worse still, such bias might have wider-spread effects, as Lee argues.
“Commentators help shape the perception we hold of each player, deepening any racial bias already held by the viewer. It’s important to consider how far-reaching those perceptions can be and how they impact footballers, even when they finish their playing career,” he said.
“If a player has aspirations of becoming a coach/manager, is an unfair advantage given to players that commentators regularly refer to as intelligent and industrious, when those views appear to be a result of racial bias?”
Is this also what is keeping BAME players and broadcasters from getting into the gantry?
The make-up of those telling us the game needs to change to closer reflect those we see playing it. Anything less than that risks being like the worst kind of commentary: empty words.
