AIBU to wonder why all white is alright?

[VeraStanhope]

I'm not a sport buff, but I have had to sit through the GB womens' hockey matches. Wondering how they all have kept lovely slim, straight noses in what looks a brutal sport, I suddenly realised mid-final that all the players are white. Celebrating with all white support staff at the end of the match. Friend who is the sports buff says "well it is a posh sport". How is that okay to accept that in 2016?

Selective vision. Our two top heptathletes are mixed race, our top female boxer is black, our second placed male gymnast is black, etc etc etc.

The hockey team contains a married couple, a chap in his sixties just won a gold - just a few.examples of inclusivity, if it matters.

think you are being a bit harsh towards your friend. She was only giving a possible explanation, not saying she agreed with it.

also statistically Britain is still a majority white country - in the last census 87% of the population was white.

So even if there were no other social factors in place at all, if a team of 11 players had an accurately exact representative % of the population there would still only be something like 1.4 players who were of any other ethnicity. Basically if they'd only had one non-white player they would be pretty much representative of the country, and if they had two they would be skewed considerably in favour of "minority" (I don't really like using that phrasing) ethnicities. So it's not like a country like the US where an all white team really would be strange.

Not to say that I think sports shouldn't be more inclusive, of course they should! I think overall social class is as much of an obstruction to many sports as race (and of course there can be an overlap) - how many of the medallists in sailing and equestrian sports went to their local comp I wonder?

Saying all this I didn't think hockey was a 'posh' sport - hockey was the standard girls winter sport throughout my borough - it was as common as netball.

One of the medal winning women's hockey players lives down the road from me. We are on the outskirts of one of the most deprived areas in the country where hockey is only played at the local club - it's not offered in any local school as far as I know. I think 'posh' is pushing it a little...

Sam Quek? - she is part of the team - repeating just so you know the team is not 100% white (and positive discrimination is not the answer for sports - the BEST person should be selected )

Welly Have you forgotten the Jamaican bobsled team?

No, they did spring to mind actually. I was replying to MrsTerry who was pointing out the whiteness of the winter olympics. It just doesn't seem odd or racist or whatever that winter sport would be dominated by white people from climates with snow.

Hockey is fairly elitist

Millions of pounds of lottery money is poured into sport. How much of it goes to grass roots sports? How can a working class kid (of any colour) financially access a rowing club, for example? There is a middle-class clique in so many sports.

I think cricket makes a good point

Cricket can be a very expensive sport; not only the kit required but also the coaching, number of matches and of course the travelling; this does not seem to be a barrier to players in my county which there are many areas of great poverty. But it is a sport where there is a great enthusiasm from players of 'traditional cricket' ethnicity from which there are lots of players, whilst I have yet to meet a player who background is Eastern European/Chinese etc

I think it's complex - partly about opportunity and exposure at school, but also largely to do with what's popular within your family/peers/local community. I don't think hockey is particularly posh, it is played at all local state schools here. I would agree with a pp about the level of coaching and the time available at private school is greater, thereby giving a firmer grounding for these pupils which gives them a bit of a head start.

Cricket can be a very expensive sport; not only the kit required but also the coaching, number of matches and of course the travelling; this does not seem to be a barrier to players in my county which there are many areas of great poverty. But it is a sport where there is a great enthusiasm from players of 'traditional cricket' ethnicity from which there are lots of players, whilst I have yet to meet a player who background is Eastern European/Chinese

Cricket in England is an interesting case. It used to span the class divide like few other sports. A recent England team didn't have a single member who had been educated at an English state school. Even the odd token oiky type who made it into the team had been given a cricket scholarship to a public school aged 11.

Given the tremendous enthusiasm for the game amongst British Asians (when I lived in Leeds it was only Asian kids out playing cricket in the street, night after night with tennis balls covered in electrical tape) It is shocking how few have broken through at the top level.

I guess what hampers, non-white, non-middle class kids in cricket is that it a sport which requires expert coaching where good technique needs to be drilled in really early. That's a hell of a lot easier if you attend a public school who employs an ex-professional solely to teach cricket. Later on, attend Cambridge or Oxford and you'll hone your skills playing against touring test sides and will visible to scouts from county cricket clubs in a way that you won't be if you are playing with your mates on an abandoned carpark somewhere in the inner city.

I don't think it is lack of enthusiasm or participation it is the lack of chances to turn that enthusiasm into something more.

As someone from a bme background I would rather see an all white team than see a below standard bme player added just for the sake of political correctness. That would just stir up aminosity. I do think that there are probably a multitude of reasons stemming from opportunity and the type and standard of sport played in different schools. The only thing that I'd find offensive is that everyone was white because it's posh. Do people really think that? I'm absolutely certain that people who are not white can also be "posh". I've met plenty of posh people of all races in my line of work.

My teenage dd plays hockey to a fairly high standard, she belongs to our local club; plays in her school team (state school not private) and also attends our local England Hockey Junior Development Centre after nomination by her club and passing an assessment.

Yes it costs us a fair amount in monetary terms for kit; travelling; club fees; pitch fees and match fees. We are not posh or wealthy and we do have to budget for it but at the moment she appears to have some ability and we have made the decision to support her. We do work hard though to minimise the impact on our other dc and ensure they don't miss out or become disadvantaged by their sister - it is a balancing act sometimes but her siblings so far don't complain.

Our dd is very dedicated to her sport though and even when not at club or coaching sessions she is outside every spare moment practising drills in the garden or street whatever the time of year or weather. She has a favourite t- shirt printed with "Eats; Sleeps; Breathes Hockey" and that pretty much sums her up

The ethnic make up of the centres she plays at is quite diverse and definitely not confined to white or public school educated children. The best and most in- form players are the ones who are picked to play competitively.

What all the players my daughter comes into contact with seem to have in common are supportive parents; dedication and a will to win - education; ethnicity or social background don't appear to be relevant.

I find it very hard to believe that the GB women's hockey team was selected purely on the basis of their skin colour or social backgrounds. We have never seen any elitism or prejudice in the involvement we've had with England Hockey.
Sometimes our daughter has been in teams, sometimes she isn't picked for the squad. The centres she attends always seem to play the best teams they can with the intention of winning - nothing more nothing less.

Well said.

Have you seen any rowing? Women's Gymnastics? Equestrian?

Then have a look at the sprint events.

To take part in a sport at an elite level you have to have talent in that sport, fitness, access to the sport and the ability to train in that sport. A lot of schools don't have playing fields and team sports can be quite expensive in terms of taking a team to a match, equipment for 10 is 10 X more than equipment for 1.

Since the National Lottery started funding sport access and ability to train have improved but that is trickling up slowly but surely.

Some of the current team are in their 30s and 40s so you are seeing people who have been playing for 30 years.

Incidentally, there is more to inclusion that just skin colour, did you know two of the team are married to each other?

I suspect as Hestertom said, that it's down to space. Our small UK BME population is overwhelmingly confined to cities where land is at a premium. A sport like hockey which demands a special pitch is not going to make the cut when there are limited space resources. Same goes for cricket.

I think it's down to money. When I played county level hockey I was at a private school. The year I was at a state school, I joined the school team but the school didn't enter for county level, so that was it. Also, at the private school, we had the astro terf that the county team played matches at, and would go on school coach trip to watch the national team. So being a professional hockey player was on the horizon, the consciousness, whereas at the state school there wasn't such interest or opportunity.

A recent England team didn't have a single member who had been educated at an English state school

One player whom I personally know (just broken into the England U19 team) was awarded a full scholarship to attend a private school based on his cricket ability when he was 12.

This is the same for quite a few promising players

I was listening to Andrew Castle this morning saying that his family were not posh and skint but he got a scholarship in the UK and the states to study.

Is hockey posh? Not really in Scotland - it's played at all state secondary schools along with netball, rugby and football. You could equally argue that the track team is almost exclusively black - where are the white people?

"Posh" sports would be anything equestrian, lacrosse and fencing.

We did fencing too (really not a posh school!). Equestrian is mixed - I know lots of horsey people who live rurally. Now the ones who trot around Kensington gardens are posh (or miliatary).

To be top at sports takes time, commitment and a hell of a lot of both from your family too.

I work so find that I am constantly taking DS to clubs, matches, training sessions... checking out leagues and treams, YouTubing techniques, googling strategy... god knows how I'd do it with more than one kid or without DH. I know mums who do a three hour drive to get their kids to sessions. My mum chose not to let me join a squad that asked me to join. Her choice, but I do wonder sometimes how far I could have gone.

Membership to a local rowing club costs £20 a month here, for 4 nights training a week, pretty much similar to most other sports.

It's not just money (although that is a big part of it) it is having access to facilities within travelling distance of where you live. For example, a few weeks ago I took part in a thread on mn where loads of people were expressing utter disgust at 7 year olds being unable to swim. It's a safety issue, it is poor parenting to not insist on swimming lessons. But where I live I have access to two council run leisure centres. You can not access swimming lessons in either until the child reaches 7 years of age. In one of them you can only put their name on the waiting list on their 7th birthday, and the waiting list is about 2 years long. Same for gymnastics. Same for hockey club etc. There are plenty of people here with money to throw at things, but if there just aren't swimming lessons/gymnastics lessons etc available then people will never excel in the sport. My area has produced some world class golfers and rugby players though, because those are two sports that the wealthy parents can access for their sons from a very early age.

I think people are being disingenuous about hockey at school. The point of PE is to introduce you to lots of different sports. It would be fairly unusual go attend a school where you didn't play any hockey.

However, that is a very different thing from pursuing it as a semi professional or professional. I used to be in that world and it IS dominated by public school pupils, which take sport to a higher level than once a week in a frozen pitch. Leagues, teams, clubs- all optional and not accessible through public schools (usually) that's where these players are coming from.

I remember watching a documentary about football- saying Asian men are very under represented in professional football. A scout was interviewed and said we've looked at this extensively to understand why Asian boys are not playing football and he said its parents prioritising education over sport.
He said Wayne Rooney used to kick a ball against the side of his house for 5 hours a day. That kind of time spent on sport and not academia was generally thought unacceptable in Asian families.

I imagine that wil change with generations though.

And of course, that is before we even get to the fact that the limited facilities available are out of the price range of the poorer families.