Hiring and Firing – is sticking with managers the right thing to do for Premiership clubs?

Every time a big club sacks their manager the narrative is often very familiar, should they have been given more time, but why? Should the question not be why is he being sacked? Should he have been sacked earlier? Who could have done a better job? A lot can be said for giving managers time to build, shape and work with their squads, but what if that time is just wasted because the manager is either not right for the job or simply not good enough for the job. As the famous saying goes sometimes you just got to rip off the band-aid, take the pain and begin the healing process. One of the best examples of a club who are not shy of ripping the band-aid off is Chelsea, and it would be hard to tell Roman Abramovich that his cut-throat policy doesn’t work. Chelsea are on their 13th different managers, since Abramovich bought the Club in 2003, and two of those managers have featured twice! However, during this period Chelsea have arguably been one of the most successful teams in England and Europe winning an impressive number of titles and trophies. This demonstrates the possible benefits of a managerial policy like Chelsea’s, it leaves new manager in no doubt that only the best will be tolerated and there are no excuses, especially if Roman has dipped into his seemingly never-ending deep pockets to bring in new talent. But why would any top manager take a job with such precarious job security? The simple answer is that they are at the top of an elite group of managers and want to test and push themselves by taking a job where they know they will be under enormous amounts of pressure and will likely be fired at the first signs of failure. These managers are ambitious people who enjoy testing themselves and perhaps just as importantly they know they will have a world-class squad to manage and a generous budget to work with.

Photo credit: Sky Sports

Of course, whenever an argument like this is made Sir Alex Ferguson and all that Manchester United achieved during his tenure is bound to be mentioned as a counter argument. But arguably Ferguson was a one-off and it would be a challenge to name another successful manager in the modern game who has lasted close to as long as Ferguson. Obviously, some people are almost certainly going to argue Arsene Wenger, however, if the measure is sustained success, he is hardly a serious candidate. What Wenger did for the Premier League and Arsenal FC cannot be understated, but the second half of his 22-year management spell is testament to the argument that clubs should not tolerate prolonged failure and that decisive action should be taken sooner rather than later no matter who the manager and their status within the club. Had Arsenal sacked Wenger even five years earlier than they did they might have avoided the situation they find themselves in now – midtable and struggling to qualify for Europe.

Photo credit: Who Ate All The Pies

When a club sacks a manager in favour of hiring a new face, they take a huge risk, but this is where clubs need to be using opportunity cost to assess if they should take the decision/risk. A club should only fire a manager if they truly feel they have someone ready to take over who will achieve more success, something that is notoriously hard to assess with mangers, especially in leagues like the Premiership which is arguably the most competitive in the world.

For clubs involved in premiership relegation scraps the situation is very different although the stakes are equally high. Often, they opt for a change of management in the pursuit of survival, and it can work, with the team that changes manager first having an advantage over their struggling competitors. If the ship is heading towards an iceberg and the captain is not able or willing to change course the only option is to bring in a new captain. However, the counter argument could be that the new captain may not know the crew and ship, but still, at least they might have a different plan to avoid the iceberg – which in a desperate situation will soon get the crew’s backing. According to the Football Financial Times between 2010 and 2020, 16 managers were sacked whilst in the relegation zone, as a result 38% of the clubs managed to achieved survival. Of the ‘relegation sackings’ that have taken place in this time frame 55% have stayed up and 58% saw an improvement of their league position. A clear takeaway from these results is that if a club is facing relegation, a change in manger is unlikely to harm survival chances. The current season only lends weight to this argument with two of the three teams likely to be relegated having stuck with their managers, or at least until it was too late in the case of Chris Wilder and Sheffield United. West Brom have changed their manger in a last-ditch attempt by hiring the great escape artist Big Sam Allardyce and they have seen major improvements under big Sam but sadly it appears a case of too little too late and now their fate is all but sealed.

Photo credit: Talksport

With regard to whether sacking managers is right for the higher achieving clubs, it appears that on the occasions where a more established or elite club has sacked a manger mid-season the large majority of new appointments can be regarded as ‘successful’ as the team often sees an upturn in their fortune and results. However, this brings the argument full circle as it will never be known if the old manager would have turned things around and improved results. It is also worth noting that most managerial sackings come after a bad run of form and bad luck, and arguably teams would naturally get back to their previous form regardless of manager – especially when often the sacked manager goes on to achieve success elsewhere. Arguably, the Ferguson model is now history and the modern game is becoming defined by the ruthless desire for almost instant and sustained success; no time, no excuses next one please and while this policy continues to deliver results why should clubs not hire and fire.