68 Ethnic sorting in football Table 3.7 Indonesian members’ group versus group segregation 2005-2015 Playing season Indonesian vs Dutch Indonesian vs Turkish Indonesian vs Moroccan Indonesian vs Surinamese Indonesian vs Antillean 2005/’06 0.101 0.410 0.368 0.364 0.277 2006/’07 0.099 0.391 0.366 0.356 0.268 2007/’08 0.099 0.385 0.356 0.345 0.269 2008/’09 0.098 0.381 0.356 0.341 0.267 2009/’10 0.098 0.380 0.360 0.340 0.266 2010/’11 0.097 0.380 0.357 0.336 0.272 2011/’12 0.096 0.375 0.357 0.330 0.272 2012/’13 0.096 0.375 0.356 0.323 0.267 2013/’14 0.094 0.368 0.351 0.310 0.261 2014/’15 0.089 0.357 0.340 0.308 0.258 Note: Cut-off points for segregation (H): extreme (0.4-1), high (0.25-0.4), moderate (0.1-0.25) and low: (0-0.1) segregated from Dutch background than Turkish backgrounds, which we would expect based on their command and use of the Dutch language. The lack of clustering of ex-colonial and Dutch background, however, leads me to reject expectation E3B. Religious exclusion over inclusion? The last expectation of this chapter was based on the consideration that the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims can act as an important barrier between Turkish and Moroccan backgrounds on the one hand, and all other groups on the other hand: E4: Members with Turkish and Moroccan backgrounds show lower degrees of mutual inbreeding compared to degrees of inbreeding between these groups and groups with other backgrounds. As was already mentioned previously, table 3.3 and 3.4 showed high degrees of segregation between Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds, and all respective outgroups. Members with Turkish backgrounds are least segregated from
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw