[Simple economics] Why do football clubs change trainers so often?

No, it did not seem to you - this article is devoted not so much to football, as to business issues. Football has now become a multi-billion dollar, highly competitive business. But there is a certain specificity for this business - often for the owners of many clubs profit is not important, in contrast to the sporting result. Most of the owners of the largest FCs are billionaires, for whom the club has become a sort of "favorite toy" and a boast to other billionaires. Although, perhaps, many of these owners do not consider themselves to be squanderers, without a doubt basing their expenses on investments. After all, the cost of brands of the world's largest football clubs is growing every year and already exceeds 1 billion dollars for tops. And this means that if suddenly a "toy" bores the owner, then he will be able to sell it, having paid back his expenses (in full or in part) for possession.

(source of the pic)

Another difference from traditional businesses is the speed of change. In the football world everything is subordinated to victories in tournaments, which are held annually. The leading football clubs of the world spend more than 60 matches for 1 year, taking part in 3-4 tournaments: the national championship, the league of champions, national cups, and also in the club world championship. Such a density of the schedule does not provide an opportunity for respite, football managers like chess players should count their actions on "several moves forward". And even in the offseason, when football players rest from official games, sports managers actively "hunt for heads", trying to sign contracts with new players.

So, in football, the change of the head coach is quite a common situation. The average duration of the work the head coach in one club decreases with each year. I will give statistics on the English Premier League, which is the most popular and rich national football championship in the world. If in the early 90-ies of the XX century the average length of the coach's stay at the post was just over 3 years, at the present time it is 2.3 years. And in England at the moment there is one "trainer-long-liver", which is at the helm of Arsenal for more than 20 years. The average without him, then it does come out only 1.3 years!

So why is this happening? The most common reason is the lack of understanding among players of the ideas and concepts of the new head coach. And just understanding. The results of the games, of course, also suffer from this. It would seem that the head coach should be given at least a year to get used to the new situation and understand the strengths and weaknesses of his players. But, again, modern football is so dynamically fast process that there is simply no time to get used to team. The result should be given immediately, from the very first matches. For the owners is easier to change one coach than a large group of expensive players. That's why in football it often happens that the head coach is not given the opportunity to work in a new club, even two months.

Another reason for the resignations is the lack of mutual understanding between the coach and the owners of the club. In this, rather, the problem of owners, they are also not immune from errors of choice. And it happens that the coach himself leaves, if something does not suit him or there are more interesting proposals.

With situations when the club shows unimportant results and, as a result, there is a change of coach, like everything is clear. But in football there are times when a successful coach changes. For example, in 2013 Munich Bayern won all possible trophies - the German championship, the cup and the German Super Cup, and the Champions League. But the leadership of the German club still replaced the coach, although many fans were confident that "from the good of good are not looking." But, again, football is so dynamic business that it can not constantly achieve results without changing anything. The manner of playing the best clubs in the world is sorted by thousands of analysts, including by means of special computer systems that count up all technical and tactical actions (for example, the number of passes per game). When the team plays in the same style and with the same performers, sooner or later, other coaches find an "antidote". Only teams equipped with the best players can afford to play in the same manner due to the individual quality of the performers. However, football players are people, not robots. Even the greatest ones have recessions. And there are injuries or illnesses, and many rivals use it. After all, a top-level player can not be replaced simply - just the same simply does not exist in nature. All this should take into account the head coach and have plans "B", "C", etc. To be always on the top, coaches need to develop all the time, to keep pace with the times. But sooner or later their ideas are exhausted, and they are no longer able to give the team a new impulse for development. That's when the leadership and decided to replace the coach.

But in every rule there are exceptions. In the history of football there were several cases when the head coach successfully managed the club for 15 years or more. First of all comes to mind the famous coach of Manchester United - Sir Alex Ferguson, who coached the team for 27 years. But in this case there are many factors. The first successes to the scot came only after 4 years of being in the position of head coach, while he himself was a step away from the resignation.

But for the vast majority of other coaches the maximum period of successful stay in one team is limited to 8-10 years. No matter how successful these or those coaches with one team were in certain periods, sooner or later a recession occurs.

Something similar happens in other areas of business, and in general in management activities. Many managers who have been in power for too long, lose their grip, cease to keep up with changes, tendencies, innovations. As a result, their company begins to lose the advantage to its competitors. Remember, for example, as the current giants of the IT industry, Apple and Microsoft started their business in the face of the domination of the giant IBM corporation, which employed more than 400 thousand people. And in many respects the success of these two companies is connected with the miscalculations of IBM management.

That's why, when evaluating the activities of a particular leader, one should take into account only the current period of time. Past merits should not influence these decisions. Past leave in the past. There are only here and now.