The Color Line Baseball Doesn’t Want to Talk About

Of 30 major league managers, 29 are white.

Frank Robinson, MLB's first African American manager, with former Seattle Mariners manager Lloyd McClendonAlex Gallardo/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Earlier this month, the Seattle Mariners fired their manager, Lloyd McClendon, the only African American skipper in Major League Baseball. Now, for the first time since 1987, there isn’t a single black manager in the league.

Just six years ago, in 2009, 10 teams employed black or Latino managers. And while 37 percent of coaches on major league staffs in 2015 were African American or Latino, roughly equal to the percentage of black and Latino big leaguers, there is currently just one manager of color: the Atlanta Braves’ Fredi González.

This is exactly the scenario that former Commissoner Bud Selig was trying to avoid when, in 1999, he sent a memo to league owners that required every club to consider minority candidates “for all general manager, assistant general manager, field manager, director of player development and director of scouting positions.” The progress made since Frank Robinson became the first black manager in 1975 had started to fade; when the “Selig Rule” went into effect, three managers of color led major league teams. Three years later, though, there were 10.

Richard Lapchick, executive director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, once lauded the Selig Rule and the NFL’s so-called Rooney Rule as “dynamic forces of change” for front offices. More recently, though, both initiatives have been criticized for not doing enough. At least the Rooney Rule requires NFL franchises to interview minority candidates; the Selig Rule, on the other hand, says that teams merely must include minority candidates on their lists of potential hires and submit those lists to the league office. (During Selig’s tenure as commissioner, which ended before this season, there were always at least three big-league managers of color.)

Earlier this year, Commissioner Rob Manfred sent out a notice to owners reiterating the league’s stance, hours before the Milwaukee Brewers fired manager Ron Roenicke. The team hired Craig Counsell to take over the team the next day without conducting a formal interview process. The move raised questions about the league’s ability to hold teams accountable for following through on its hiring recommendations.

Manfred later told the New York Times that the league would look at the rule, noting that he tried to get a commitment from teams that hired interim managers to conduct a full search after the season ends. (Although bench coach Dave Roberts served briefly as interim manager for the San Diego Padres this season, he has not interviewed for the full-time position. He’s reportedly a finalist to replace McClendon in Seattle, however.) 

Baseball’s diversity problems go beyond the manager’s seat, of course. For the last three decades, the percentage of African Americans in the big leagues has declined (though that figure has remained relatively flat at 8.3 percent in the last five years, leaving a pinch of hope). And while the Selig Rule was intended to surface more minority candidates for front-office positions, a mere 13 percent of general managers are people of color.

Major League Baseball will continue touting its international pipeline and its efforts to bring the sport back to kids in America’s inner cities. But for now, managers of color may continue to feel, as McClendon told the New York Times in July, “like you’re sitting on an island by yourself.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate