Funnily enough I started writing this post at the weekend in the wake of Enzo Maresca's departure from Chelsea. In the meantime, Ruben Amorim has also been sacked as United manager which only underlines some of the points I intended to make.
If the post feels rushed then I apologize but in modern football, if I wait too long to put my thoughts down then you never know who will be canned next!
The screenshot below of the current odds on the next EPL manager to leave his post was taken before West Ham's defeat to Forest last night. Can I get this post out before Nuno gets sacked for a 2nd time this season?
With Amorim's departure, we've now seen 25% of clubs change the man in charge at the start of the 25/26 season with Forest having already sacked 2 managers in 2025 making it 6 managerial changes in total.
I say 'managerial changes' but that appears to be a significant part of the problem here. The men we call 'managers' aren't really managers! Even their job titles don't match the status by which they are judged by fans, media and in many cases it would appear their employers.
Going off what the official websites and club press releases state regarding their appointments here are the job titles of the current 19 Premier League 'Managers'. For the record both Amorim and Maresca were 'Head Coaches' too.
| Club | Manager | Job Title |
|---|---|---|
| Arsenal | Arteta | First Team Manager |
| City | Guardiola | Manager |
| Villa | Emery | Head Coach |
| Liverpool | Slot | Head Coach |
| Brentford | Andrews | Head Coach |
| Sunderland | Le Bris | Head Coach |
| Newcastle | Howe | Head Coach |
| Brighton | Hürzeler | Head Coach |
| Fulham | Silva | Head Coach |
| Everton | Moyes | Senior Men’s Manager |
| Spurs | Frank | Head Coach |
| Palace | Glasner | Manager |
| Bournemouth | Iraola | Head Coach |
| Leeds | Farke | First Team Manager |
| Forest | Dyche | Head Coach |
| West Ham | Nuno | Head Coach |
| Burnley | Parker | Head Coach |
| Wolves | Edwards | Head Coach |
| Chelsea | Rosenior | Head Coach |
Does the fact that we talk about these men as Managers when in fact their job titles are for the main part Head Coaches really make a difference or is it just a case of potato / potatoe ?
In isolation you'd probably say the difference is meaningless. Your Vice President of Sanitation is still your toilet cleaner whatever you call them. However, when you consider the set-up of top flight football clubs more broadly then it's clear that there has been a change to the overall responsibilities that the manager and/or Head Coach possesses.
The introduction of Sporting Directors, Directors of Football and similar sounding roles at the vast majority of elite clubs across Europe has diminished the role of the traditional football manager.
I don't think that I need to go through every Premier League club and provide another list with job roles because we all know who I'm talking about.
In fact, that's one of the most obvious changes that's occurred in the modern Premier League! 20 years ago no one knew who the Directors of a football club were and quite frankly no one cared! You had a Manager who was responsible for the football side of things and you had a Chairman who was more than likely the majority if not sole owner of the club. For the most part those were the 2 men that fans knew about, those were the 2 men held accountable for success and failure on the pitch.
Fast forward to the 21st century and now every fan knows who their Sporting/Football Directors are. Getting a 'good one' is celebrated like a big signing. Bear in mind this is a guy who turns up to work in a suit and tie. He's not going to smash in 20 goals a season. He's not that midfield pivot your team has been crying out for and he's not even going to get his hands dirty on the training pitches to improve your playing staff. He's a gloried administrator.
Except of course he isn't. He's the man (or men because these days you need multiple people for this job apparently) to set your 'footballing vision'.
Chelsea's co-sporting Directors, Paul Winstanley and Lawrence Stewart. Both have spent the bulk of their careers as analysts and scouts. Neither has played or coached professionally image source
Excuse me while I pause to wash the sick from my mouth but any time I hear the words 'vision' or 'strategy' or any other such similar management bullshit terms it immediately makes me think that here is someone who can talk the talk but can't actually walk the walk.
Who the fuck are these people and why as fans should we care about their 'vision'?
Presumably it's pretty simple, the purpose of football clubs is to win football matches. The purpose of a Manager or Head Coach is to deliver on that one overriding strategy that 'North Star' if you want to speak in management terms. If you're a football fan and you care about something other than winning football matches then please leave me a comment below to help me broaden my sporting horizons.
Of course the money side of things needs careful management as it always has done. Managers have always had to work within their means as far as budget is concerned but historically they've been the men responsible for the football played on the pitch on any given weekend.
On one hand, that still seems to be the case. Certainly fans and the media hold the Manager/Head Coach responsible in the first instance for results and performance in matches. Given that the turnover in managers seems far greater than that of Sporting Directors then it'd appear that the ultimate decision makers must be in agreement with this sentiment too.
On the other, it's clear that the structure of modern Premier League clubs views the role of Manager as a small cog in a much larger machine even when it comes to how the side plays. The manager needs to follow direction from above and if he's unable to do that and/or unable to get results on the pitch then he's instantly replaceable.
Thomas Frank knows the deal! Best not to criticize the idiots that have run the "football" club into the ground if you want to keep your job source
I don't personally think that Amorim has done a good job at United and Maresca's performance as Chelsea boss has been patchy. However, within the structure of modern football clubs as described above, how is it these are the guys who get hung out to dry when it all goes wrong?
You can't blame Amorim for the decades of mismanagement at Old Trafford. You can't hold him wholly accountable for the fact that the new ownership and management's strategy can be akin to - we're in a hole, better keep digging to get out!
Maresca wasn't even involved in player transfers, he had to make do with Chelsea spending billions on an already bloated and ever changing squad of largely unproven talent and yet they still couldn't give him a half decent centre back or goalkeeper!
The story at both clubs is remarkably similar. Multiple ownership and then a senior management level where it's clear that alignment in the aforementioned 'strategy' is missing in both cases because there appear to be too many swinging dicks in the room at once.
The conditions were never there for either of these men to succeed and it's difficult to imagine that it will be much different for those that come after. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!
Longer term success is being delivered by clubs who have stable ownership and director level positions and by those that give their 'Manager' (to use the traditional term) greater freedom to both direct tactics on the pitch and at least influence any football related operations off it.
The Premier League title for 25/26 will almost certainly be won by a man with 'manager' in his job title just as it has been for 31 of the 33 seasons that have gone before (Slot 24/25 and Conte 16/17 the exceptions).
"I came here to be the manager" and if you listen very carefully at the same time he uttered those words you can hear his P45 being printed in the background
While watching rival clubs and managers implode is kind of fun, I can't help feel a bit sorry for these poor bastards being sent out to face the press and defend decisions many of which they aren't responsible for!
Their positions have become untenable both with regards to their relationships to the board and directors but presumably within the changing room and training pitches too. After all, how can a coach be expected to get the best out of a group of professional footballers when they know that he has no real authority and by all accounts is the most expendable employee within the organisation?
The record number of full-time managerial changes during a Premier League season i.e. not including caretaker or interim roles is 14 recorded in the 22/23 season. At just over halfway through the 25/26 season, that figure is not out of reach and I'd be surprised if we didn't add a couple more casualties to the list this month.
In the first 15 seasons of the Premier League the average number of clubs that would change manager per season was 6. Since then the figure has risen to 9 clubs per season with 7 of those 18 seasons seeing half or more of all Premier League clubs changing there manager.
Does that suggest that the model is working? Do you as a fan think you are getting better football and better entertainment value as a result? I don't...
