Question: Read the passage and answer the question that follows it.
Szymanski suggests that the problem of racism in football may be present even today. He begins by verifying an earlier hypothesis that clubs’ wage bills explain 90% of their performance. Thus, if players’ salaries were to be only based on their abilities, clubs that spend more should finish higher. If there is pay discrimination against some group of players-fewer teams bidding for black players thus lowering the salaries for blacks with the same ability as whites-that neat relation may no longer hold. He concludes that certain clubs seem to have achieved much less than what they could have, by not recruiting black players.
Which one of the following findings would best support Szymanski's conclusion?
Szymanski’s suggestion that racism exists in football even today is underlined in all four findings. The author explains about the existence of racism in football clubs by citing the selection of players, their salaries and the final outcome of matches (whether teams win or lose).
Option 4 gives an example that discrimination exists (black players getting lower wage bills than white players) which is not exactly the point.
Similarly, clubs taking advantage of the situation (option 1) is not something Szymanski is immediately concerned with.
Between options 2 and 3, option 2 is better. While option 3 highlights a generic ‘clubs with a history of discrimination’, option 2 is crisp and clear – white players with higher wages still did not perform proportionately well – something which has been explicitly supported in the passage.
Hence, the correct answer is option 2.