So, the Brazilian Football Federation announced last week it will attempt to curb the high turnover of managers in their Serie A by introducing hiring and firing regulations next season.
Brazilian teams are notorious for their lack of patience, with some teams changing coaches three or four times a season.
Only three of the 20 teams retained their manager for the whole of the last campaign, while all four relegated teams had at least three managers, quite obviously without success.
The Federation wants to introduce a rule whereby clubs will only be able to fire a coach and bring in a new one from outside the club once a season. The same will apply to managers, who can only resign and join another team on one occasion.
“This is a great advance for Brazilian football and it will be good for both the clubs as well as the coaches,” CBF President Rogerio Caboclo said.
“It implies a more mature relationship and allows for longer and more consistent work. It is the end of musical chairs for coaches.”
All well and good, and a sensible approach. Or is it?
Just imagine the same stipulation was introduced in Europe, and particularly the trigger-happy Premier League.
Such is the weight of the television money in the top division, the clubs can afford the merry-go-round approach.
Watford alone last season had four managers in the season 2019-20. Not only were they relegated, but they had to fork out millions in compensation to the departing bosses.
The struggling clubs are not alone; Arsenal had three managers, as did Everton. While West Ham and Tottenham also changed the head role, Covid ensured the turnover was low compared to previous years.
In 2018-19, Fulham, Leicester, Southampton and Huddersfield would all have fallen foul of the Brazilian rule, while the season before Everton (again), Swansea and West Bromwich Albion also had multiple managers, aside from the many clubs that changed just once.
But should it be allowed? Of course it should. Is there another industry that would impose restrictions where a failing leader has to stay in charge, even if the company he or she runs is falling apart?
In football, a manager can lose the support of his players in the blink of an eye. Player power is huge, and if your staff don’t want to play, then the manager goes. It’s the rules. Wild West it might be, but the managers know the game, and can always fall back on the cheque that accompanies the bad news.
Some have made a very decent living out of failure. Bring in a trouble-shooter to sort out a struggling club, work the magic for a year or so, players become comfortable, results slip, get fired, bank money.
Sam Allardyce, one-time England manager, has managed eight clubs at the top.
Jose Mourinho has been in charge of nine teams in the Premier League and Europe - and never more than three years in one stay. He has also received an estimated £63.5 million ($87.5m) in pay-offs.
Mark Hughes has been in charge of six clubs, Steve Bruce, Alan Pardew, Harry Redknapp and Roy Hodgson five.
Can football authorities really expect a club to stick with a manager, brought in after say eight games of the season, who then loses his first 15 games? The players will give up, the stands will be a cauldron of abuse, the manager a broken man, but required to stick it out because of the game of ‘musical chairs’ has ended.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds in Brazil, and whether failing clubs find a way around it, but this is one policy unlikely to be adopted by the rest of the world.
