See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262054892

You don't know what you're doing! The impact of managerial change on club
performance in the English Premier League

Article  in  Managing Leisure · November 2014

DOI: 10.1080/13606719.2014.910000

CITATIONS READS

9 454

3 authors:

Stuart W Flint Daniel Plumley

University of Leeds Sheffield Hallam University
118 PUBLICATIONS   582 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rob Wilson
Sheffield Hallam University
25 PUBLICATIONS   378 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stigma processes View project

Technology and Healthcare View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Plumley on 06 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley]
On: 01 May 2014, At: 00:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Managing Leisure
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmle20

You don't know what you're doing! The

impact of managerial change on club
performance in the English Premier League
a a a
Stuart W. Flint , Daniel J. Plumley & Robert J. Wilson
a
Academy of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University,
Sheffield, UK
Published online: 28 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Stuart W. Flint, Daniel J. Plumley & Robert J. Wilson (2014): You don't know what you're
doing! The impact of managerial change on club performance in the English Premier League, Managing
Leisure, DOI: 10.1080/13606719.2014.910000

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.910000

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Managing Leisure, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.910000

You don’t know what you’re doing! The impact of

managerial change on club performance in the
English Premier League
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014

Stuart W. Flint, Daniel J. Plumley and Robert J. Wilson

Academy of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

It is widely regarded that the role of the football manager is one of chronic insecurity. The pressure
on the modern day football manager for consistently high club performance is intense, particularly
due to the continuing rise in revenues available to clubs competing in elite leagues. Managerial
change often occurs when a clubs’ form declines. However, whether managerial change is beneficial
for a club remains unclear. This study addresses this area of examination by analysing data on man-
agerial changes within the last decade (2003/2004 to 2012/2013) in the English Premier League. The
main findings of this study were that managerial changes led to an increase in points per match but
did not necessarily lead to an improvement in final league position. Further analysis revealed that
when considering final league position, clubs in the bottom half of the table improved their final
league position, while clubs in the top half did not.

Keywords: sports, management, football, organisational change, replacement policy

INTRODUCTION
The majority of organisations will encounter
changes in leadership and often, as Tena and
Forrest (2007) state, there is a natural time
for a change. For example, following an
unsuccessful election campaign, a political
party may change their leader, while in a
business setting, leadership may be
changed due to the expiration of a Chief
Executive Officer’s contract or when that
person reaches a certain age. In a pro-
fessional sport club, it is most commonly at
the end of a season. However, within the pro-
fessional sport industry, there are a number
of differences between the term leader and
manager. For example, in a professional foot-
ball club, the leader will be the owner or the
chairman, responsible for making decisions
based on the overall strategic direction of
the club and a number of off-field perform-
ance indicators, whereas the manager will
# 2014 Taylor & Francis
be responsible for the on-pitch performance
of the players. The focus of this article is on
the performance of the manager and here-
after uses the term manager exclusively.
The rationale behind the natural time for
changing a manager in professional football
being at the end of a season is to allow an
incoming manager to implement a new stra-
tegic approach in addition to recruitment of
new personnel before the start of a season.
The role of the manager is always thought
to be that of formulating the purpose
(visions, aims, goals, objectives and perform-
ance targets) of the organisation and control-
ling its movement into the future (Stacey,
2003). It is recognised that this cannot
always be perfectly achieved, but it is
thought that managers need to be in
control, to design and use systems that ulti-
mately lead to the aims, goals and objectives
being achieved (Stacey, 2003).
 2 Flint et al.
Despite the argument that there is a
logical time for a change in leadership,
many organisations, particularly pro-
fessional football clubs, change leaders at
unconventional times. Dobson and Goddard
(2011) highlight that the role of the modern
day football manager is one of chronic inse-
curity and the trend in recent seasons has
been to dismiss a manager midway through
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
a season in an attempt to improve perform-
ance. Previous literature relating to manage-
rial change in organisations has highlighted a
general agreement that poor prior perform-
ance is correlated with the enforced depar-
ture of management and there are instances
of when this policy has been successful in
the past (Groves, Hing, McMillan, & Naugh-
ton, 1995; Hudson, Malatesta, & Parrino,
2004; Warzynski, 2000; Weisbach, 1988). In
testing whether managerial change is posi-
tive, difficulties arise in selecting which indi-
cators should be analysed and over what
time period (Tena & Forrest, 2007). For
example, previous research has used stock
market performance to measure the impact
of managerial change, such as Warner,
Watts, and Wruck (1988) and Cools and van
Praag (2004), who found no evidence that
managerial change improved stock market
performance.
European Football Industry
Substantial increases in European football
revenue have been well documented in
recent years. Indeed, the European football
market continued to show resistance to
wider economic pressures, growing by 11%
to E19.4 billion in 2011/2012 (Deloitte,
2013). The most recent set of figures avail-
able at the time of writing indicate that the
‘big five’ leagues’ (the English Premier
League [EPL] in England, the Bundesliga in
Germany, La Liga in Spain, Serie A in Italy
and Ligue 1 in France) revenue grew to E9.3
billion in 2011/2012, of which all five
leagues experienced growth compared with
the previous year (Deloitte, 2013). Of these,
EPL remains by a distance the highest
revenue generating league (E2.9 billion in
2011/2012). This figure is E1 billion more
than the next best revenue generating
league in Europe (the Bundesliga in
Germany). Moreover, the EPL has a greater
reach into the global market than any other
European league. EPL domestic broadcasting
rights contracts will generate around £3.4
billion over the three seasons from 2013 to
2014 (an increase of around 60% on the pre-
vious cycle), whereas overseas broadcast
rights covering over 200 countries will gener-
ate £2.2 billion during the same period
(an increase of over 50% on the previous
cycle; Deloitte, 2013).
The increases in payments for broadcast-
ing rights documented above have been a
significant driver in the growth of the EPL.
Indeed, the latest broadcasting contract
equates roughly to an extra £25 million for
each EPL club based on the league’s long
established central revenue distribution
mechanism compared with the previous con-
tract (Deloitte, 2013). In addition, relegated
clubs are entitled to parachute payments
equating to a combined £48 million over the
four years following relegation. While this is
a substantial figure and understandably has
benefits for clubs, compared with the esti-
mated £90 million in extra income that can
be earned from promotion to the EPL, it is
more beneficial for clubs to be competing
in England’s elite league. Even within the
EPL itself, there are additional revenue
benefits including increased sponsorship
and commercial potential as well as perform-
ance-related bonuses. For example, each
position in EPL has been estimated to be
worth £750,000 on average in recent
seasons in merit payments relating to broad-
casting deals (The Football Association
Premier League Limited, 2012). With this in
mind, the pressures of being a manager in
the EPL are evident. As previously stated,
the on-pitch performance of the football
 You don’t know what you’re doing!
club is attributable to the manager. For
example, if a team is performing well, then
the manager is praised by chairmen, fans
and the media. However, if performances
begin to deteriorate, then those same stake-
holders begin to put the manager under
increased scrutiny and pressure. More
often than not, the decision is to remove a
manager from his position and install a repla-
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
cement to facilitate an upturn in perform-
ance (see Gonzalez-Gomez, Picazo-Tadeo, &
Garcia-Rubio, 2011 for example). Notwith-
standing this, evidence is still lacking that
demonstrates managerial change leads to
an upturn in performance. This article
addresses this question and whether man-
agerial change influences league position at
the end of a given season. The rest of the
article is structured as follows. Previous lit-
erature relating to the topic is analysed
before the methodology and data analysis
of this articleare introduced. Following this,
results and findings are discussed before
the article concludes and presents options
for future research.
Previous Sport Studies
There have been a number of previous
studies that relate to managerial change in
a sporting context dating back as far as the
1960s. Some of these have focused on the
major American sports industries such as
the National Basketball Association (NBA:
Giambatista, 2004), National Hockey League
(NHL: Rowe, Cannella, Rankin, & Gorman,
2005), Major League Baseball (MLB: Grusky,
1963; McTeer, White, & Persad, 1995) and
the National Football League (NFL: Brown,
1982). Others have focused exclusively on
football in European leagues such as the
EPL, Dutch Eredivisie, German Bundesliga,
Spanish La Liga and Italian Serie A (Audas,
Dobson, & Goddard, 2002; Bell, Brooks, &
Markham, 2013; Bruinshoofd & ter Weel,
2003; De Paola and Scoppa, 2012; Frick &
Simmons, 2008; Gonzalez-Gomez et al., 2011;
3
Hope, 2003; Koning, 2003; Tena & Forrest,
2007).
Previous research examining the impact
of managerial change on performance using
American sports clubs have reported mixed
findings. Within the MLB, Grusky (1963)
found a negative relationship between man-
agerial change and performance that
created a vicious circle of continual decline
(i.e. poor performance triggers manager
change which intensifies poor performance).
This led to a perpetual cycle of decline
driven by increased organisational instabil-
ity brought on by a managerial change. In
addition, McTeer et al. (1995) concluded
that there was no improvement in perform-
ance in the full season after managerial
change although performance immediately
after managerial change did increase slightly.
Brown (1982) drew similar conclusions when
focusing on the NFL stating that organis-
ational effectiveness and performance do
not increase following managerial change.
Furthermore, Rowe et al. (2005) suggested
that giving managers more time leads to
better performance in the NHL. Rowe et al.
suggested that this occurs because new
managers need time to lead organisation
reconstruction and implement the right
initiatives to achieve this goal.
Other research has demonstrated that
mid-season managerial change disrupted
performance rather than improving it (Giam-
batista, 2004). Converse findings have been
reported by Gonzalez-Gomez et al. (2011),
who reviewed the impact of mid-season man-
agerial change on sporting performance in
Spanish first division football clubs. They
found that a mid-season managerial change
improves sporting performance, yet it does
not allow these clubs to perform as well as
the teams that have not changed managers
halfway through the season. Gonzalez-
Gomez et al. suggest that changing managers
can be effective when the football team is not
performing well. However, they recommend
that club executives should plan the season
 4 Flint et al.
well beforehand to avoid finding themselves
in a situation where they must change man-
agers during a season (Gonzalez-Gomez
et al., 2011).
It is reasonable to suggest that, in actual
fact, the majority of club executives do sub-
scribe to this mantra. More often than not,
a change of manager midway through a
season is simply a reaction to a poor run of
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
results and a short-term decision rather
than anything that has stemmed from poor
planning in the first instance. Despite this,
it has become an increasing trend in recent
seasons. For example, in the EPL, there
have been 60 managerial changes in the last
10 seasons. It is figured such as this one
which has led to a growing body of research
in this area.
One of the most comprehensive studies
was conducted for English football by
Audas et al. (2002), where every UK Football
League and EPL game between 1972/1973
and 1999/2000 was examined to assess the
impact of managerial change on club per-
formance. This research outlined that there
had been more than 700 cases of mid-
season managerial change during the
sample period. The findings suggested that
clubs that change manager mid-season
underperform over the following three
months and that clubs changing a manager
mid-season subsequently tended to perform
worse than those that did not (Audas et al.
2002). Further studies have been undertaken
in Dutch football by Bruinshoofd and ter
Weel (2003) and Koning (2003). The latter
found that club performance does not
improve when a manager is fired and that
new managers perform worse than their
fired predecessors in several instances. For
example, Koning (2003) found that team per-
formance decreased following 11 of the 28
manager changes made by Dutch premier
league clubs during the seasons 1993/1994
to 1997/1998. Bruinshoofd and ter Weel
(2003) concluded that sacking a manager
seems neither to be effective in terms of
improving team performance and a similar
conclusion is drawn from De Paola and
Scoppa (2012) in relation to Italian football
where the results of a four-year study indi-
cated that changing a manager does not
improve club performance.
The acquisition of the right manager is
likely to be integral to a club’s on field
success as the manager is responsible for
selecting the players and the style in which
they play which will ultimately lead to
success or failure on the pitch. If failure per-
sists, the club has an option to dismiss the
manager. However, the appointment and
subsequent dismissal of the wrong manager
can be extremely costly as managers are
entitled to compensation if their contracts
are terminated early (Bell et al., 2013).
There have been a number of high-profile
instances of this in recent years with Rafael
Benı́tez receiving £6 million in compensation
following his sacking from Liverpool in 2010
and Chelsea paying fees of £12.6 million and
£18 million to Luiz Felipe Scolari in 2009
and Jose Mourinho in 2007, respectively, fol-
lowing their dismissals. Bell et al. (2013)
noted that given the significant costs
involved with managerial change, it is
perhaps surprising that there are relatively
few studies that have investigated whether
there is an optimal time to make this stra-
tegic decision.
Presently, it appears that only Hope’s
(2003) model represents an attempt at devel-
oping a practical econometric solution to
answer this question. Hope (2003) suggested
that a football manager’s main objective is to
maximise the number of league points accu-
mulated and proposes three core factors
with regard to managerial performance: (1)
the honeymoon period (length of the honey-
moon period in which a manager is exempt
from being sacked); (2) the trapdoor
(average number of points accumulated per
game) and (3) the weight (the most recent
games will be given significant weight in ana-
lysing the managers performance). Taking
 You don’t know what you’re doing!
these factors into account, a manager would
be sacked if they fall below the trap door
figure. Using partial data from the EPL
seasons 1996/1997 to 2001/2002, Hope’s
(2003) model suggested that in considering
these factors, a manager should gain an
average of at least 0.74 points per game and
56.81 points over the course of the season
to avoid being sacked by the club. Hope’s
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
model represented a significant step
forward in this area of research; however,
there were also a number of inherent draw-
backs. For example, Hope’s model does not
consider whether games are played at
home or away, the quality of the opposition,
the importance of avoiding relegation, non-
EPL games (e.g. cup competitions), the finan-
cial costs of firing a manager and the diverse
aspirations of alternative clubs (Bell et al.
2013).
As previously stated, the position of the
football manager is particularly volatile.
Such volatility is magnified when one con-
siders the context of the English football
industry and EPL. The potential implications
of managerial change on a football club are
varied but can have significant impacts
such as elevating threats of relegation and
consequently financial loss. Arguably, it
would be assumed that managerial change
would be more likely to occur in the
bottom half of the league. Decisions about
managerial change have been questioned in
the past and debates about this topic are
common. Thus, examining this important
judgement can offer a valuable insight into
this area of interest. Managerial change
solely based on the findings of Hope (2003)
and Gonzalez-Gomez et al. (2011) appears
too simplistic. Hope (2003) suggests that
managerial change should occur when
points per match is below 0.74, whereas Gon-
zalez-Gomez et al. (2011) state that club per-
formance may be improved by replacing the
manager. However, other important factors
such as league position and club expec-
tations need to be included when
5
considering managerial change. No findings
currently exist that consider a standardised
performance measurement or examine the
impact on the league position of clubs at
the time of managerial change. Therefore,
the primary aim of the study was to
examine whether managerial change was
beneficial in acquiring more points per
match. The secondary aim was to examine
whether managerial change improved final
league position. It was hypothesised that
managerial change would result in an
improvement in points per match in align-
ment with previous research (Gonzalez-
Gomez et al., 2011). On the basis of improved
performance, it was also hypothesised that
league position would improve due to man-
agement change.
METHOD
This section briefly describes EPL over a 10-
year period (from seasons 2003/2004 to 2012/
2013) and details the number of competing
teams and the measurement of performance
used. Data were collected from the official
Premier League website. These are dis-
cussed with links to the approach taken by
the present study before the section con-
cludes with an outline of the data analysis
undertaken.
EPL 2003–2013
Throughout this 10-year period, the EPL has
consisted of 20 teams having been reduced
from 22 in 1995. The composition of the
league changes from year to year due to pro-
motion from and relegation to the second
division (currently named The Champion-
ship). The data set for the present study con-
sists of teams that played in the highest
league (EPL) during any one season
between 2003/2004 and 2012/2013. Overall,
a total number of 36 clubs were included in
the analysis. During a season, each team
has two matches against every other team
 6 Flint et al.
(home and away). Thus, there is a total of 38
league matches. Three points are awarded
for a win, one point for a draw and no
points for a loss. Hence, the end-of-season
club scores will fall within a range of 0 – 114.
Non-EPL matches such as domestic or Euro-
pean cup competitions are not included as
part of the analysis.
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
Data Analysis
In the EPL table, team performance is
measured by the total number of points
obtained during an entire season. During a
season, this variable is strictly non-decreas-
ing (excluding extraordinary penalties by
the Football Association). Measured in the
total number of points earned, performance
can increase or stagnate but never decrease.
This study used league points and league
matches as the main proxy for the analysis
and considers the average points per match
obtained by each manager. The average
points per match of those clubs that have
experienced managerial change during the
last decade were analysed. A paired t-test
was used to examine the difference in
points per match that a team had accumu-
lated before and after managerial change.
In addition to this, league position before
and after the change was considered. A
paired t-test was also used to examine the
difference between the league position
before managerial change and final league
position. A further two-paired t-tests were
subsequently conducted to compare league
position before managerial change and to
final league position: (1) including those
clubs in the bottom half when managerial
change occurred (Positions 11– 20) and (2)
including those clubs in the top half of the
league when managerial change occurred
(Positions 1– 10). For all analyses, the
points per match and league position
before managerial change was compared
with the rest of the season. Alpha was set
at 0.05 for both tests.
RESULTS
Forced and Voluntary Resignation
During the time period considered for the
present study, there were a total of 60 man-
agerial changes among the 36 clubs. This
equates to an average of six managerial
changes per season and implies that during
the average season, 30% of EPL clubs are
faced with managerial change. Of these 60 dis-
missals, 46 were sackings; 9 were either
instances where the manager resigned or left
by mutual consent; 3 were signed by other
clubs meaning they had to vacate their
current post and the remaining 2 instances
were where a club had appointed an interim
caretaker manager until the club could find a
suitable replacement. All 60 occurrences of
managerial changes are included in the analy-
sis irrespective of the reason for change. It is
assumed that a manager resigning or leaving
by mutual consent is similar to a sacking as
it will relate to poor prior performance. Fur-
thermore, it is reasonable to suggest that
instances where a caretaker manager is
installed are also linked to the sacking/depar-
ture of a manager as the caretaker is seen as a
stopgap solution and is commonly in charge
of only a few matches.
Table 1 illustrates that greater points per
match are achieved by clubs after managerial
change. A paired t-test demonstrated that
points per match were significantly improved
following managerial change (t(52) ¼ 21.99,
p , .05). Despite the improvement in points
per game, a paired t-test demonstrated that
there was no significant difference in final
league position following managerial change
(t(52) ¼ 1.31, p . .05). However, when exam-
ining managerial change including only clubs
in the bottom half of the league, there was a
significant difference, whereby league pos-
ition improved at the end of the season
(t(42) ¼ 2.39, p , .05). This was not the case
when managerial change occurred in clubs
in the top half of the league (t(42) ¼ 21.50,
p . .05).
 You don’t know what you’re doing! 7

DISCUSSION

position after
MC (top half)

7.10 (5.86)
League
The present study provides a useful examin-

10
ation of the impacts of managerial change in
the EPL. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first study to examine the impact of man-
before MC agerial change in the EPL on performance. In

5.20 (2.20)
(top half) line with Gonzalez-Gomez et al. (2011), the
position
League

findings demonstrate that managerial

10 change in the EPL has a beneficial impact
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014

on points per match, where greater points

have been acquired by clubs who have
position after

made a managerial change in the past 10

MC (bottom

15.00 (3.79)
League

years. The first hypothesis was, therefore,

half)
43

accepted as points per match improved fol-

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Points Per Match Before and After Managerial Change

lowing managerial change. However, while

more points were acquired by clubs follow-
ing managerial change, this did not improve
(bottom half)

the league position that the club finished

16.28 (3.21)
before MC
position
League

when including the entire sample. Thus, the

43

second hypothesis was rejected as league

position of clubs who had made a managerial
change within the past decade did not
improve. However, the findings demonstrate
13.51 (5.22)

that managerial change can be beneficial in

after MC
position
League

improving final league position for those

53

clubs in the bottom half of the league who

changed their manager, while this was not
evident for clubs in the top half. It might be
14.19 (5.32)
before MC

argued that the difference observed in

position
League

league position for clubs in the bottom half

53

compared with the top half is understand-

able given that other teams in the top half
are likely to be performing well and, there-
Points per

1.17 (.50)
after MC

fore, acquiring more points, making it more

match

difficult to finish above them. In comparison,

53

clubs in the bottom half may be easier to

Note: MC, managerial change.

surpass owing to the fact that those other

clubs will be acquiring fewer points. The
Points per

before MC

1.03 (.48)
match

present study has both similarities and

53

differences compared with previous

research in the area. Similarities are evident
between our findings and that of McTeer
et al. (1995), Bruinshoofd and ter Weel
deviation)
(standard

(2003) and Tena and Forrest (2007), who all

reported an improvement in performance
Mean

following managerial change. However, the

N
 8 Flint et al.
present study contrasts with findings
reported by Audas et al. (2002), Koning
(2003), Rowe et al. (2005) and De Paola and
Scoppa (2012). In these studies, the
authors’ overriding conclusion was that a
managerial change did not lead to an
improvement in performance. Furthermore,
the analysis undertaken by this study with
regards to focusing on both halves of the
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
league offers new insights to this area of
interest. To the best of our knowledge, no
previous study has considered the differ-
ences between clubs that were in the top or
bottom half of the table at the time of the
managerial change. Thus, the present study
provides novel findings on the impact of
managerial change on final league position.
Limitations
While this research has provided a useful
insight into the impact of managerial
change in the EPL over the last decade,
there were three potential shortcomings of
the study. First, the timing of change was
not considered (i.e. whether the change
was made at the start or end of the
season), which may have affected the
amount of pressure a club may have been
experiencing (e.g. relegation threatened).
Timing of change was not considered due
to the varied factors evident at different
time points within a given season such as
the results achieved in cup competitions
and allowing new managers sufficient oppor-
tunity to work with players in alignment with
Hope’s (2003) definition of the ‘honeymoon
period’. However, the present study uses a
standardised measure of points gained per
match to account for these factors. Second,
in the past, managerial change might have
been more likely in clubs towards the
bottom half of the division which our study
supports with 43 of 53 changes occurring in
teams in the bottom half of the league.
However, the implications of billionaire
owners at certain clubs have meant that
the position of managers at clubs even at
the top of the league are also unstable if
expectations are not achieved. Thus, clubs
in the top half of the table may implement
managerial change due to not meeting
targets that might be unrealistic set by the
owners, despite appearing to perform admir-
ably given their league position. Third, the
amount of games each manager had accumu-
lated varied which might have affected the
points per match achieved. For instance,
based on the premise that clubs receive a
short-term benefit from managerial change
(Bruinshoofd & ter Weel, 2003; McTeer
et al., 1995), if a club changed their
manager after 30 of 38 matches, it would be
arguably expected that more points per
match would be achieved in the final 8
matches.
Implications
The findings of the present study suggest to
football club boards that while managerial
change does improve points per match, it
does not necessarily lead to improved
league position. The findings suggest that
managerial change will only lead to
improved performance in the bottom half
of the league. For clubs in the top half
(those pushing for European qualification
or challenging for the championship), the
results suggest that managerial change is
unadvisable. Furthermore, given that man-
agerial change often carries an additional
cost to the club, due to compensation for
breaking a contract agreement, it may in
fact cause a greater financial loss. The
results of the present study should be ben-
eficial for club stakeholders when consider-
ing managerial change and can be
informative for analysts, with debates
common over whether managerial change
is the correct decision. Given the different
factors that need to be considered and the
potential implications of managerial change
for clubs in the top and bottom half as
 You don’t know what you’re doing!
alluded to above, the findings of this article
provide new insights that should be taken
into account when making decisions about
managerial change. For example, the
pressure on clubs to remain in the EPL,
given the financial benefits, is often cited as
the reason for changing a manager and this
factor is supported in the findings of this
article.
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
Moreover, Hope’s (2003) model does not
account for league position and suggests
that sackings should occur when the points
per match a manager gains drops below
0.74, irrespective of the performance of
other clubs. This approach suggests that
other clubs that also accumulate less than
0.74 points per match should similarly
replace their manager (Hope, 2003).
However, the findings in this study suggest
that league position needs to be considered
particularly in instances where a clubs objec-
tive is to avoid relegation (i.e. if the club is in
the bottom half of the table, managerial
change is more likely to have a positive
impact on playing performance), whereas
managerial change is less productive for
clubs competing in the top half of the table.
Thus, the findings of the present study
suggest that previous managerial change
for clubs in the top half of the league in the
past 10 years of the EPL (e.g. the dismissal
of Luiz Felipe Scolari in 2009 and Jose Mour-
inho in 2007 by Chelsea FC) was an
ill-informed decision if the objective was to
improve league position. From a business
perspective, this decision was compounded
by the financial implication of the compen-
sation paid to the outgoing manager.
Future Research
While this study suggests that managerial
change can have a beneficial impact,
especially for clubs in the bottom half of
the league which may be financial based on
the improved final league position, a more
comprehensive examination of the impacts
9
of managerial change in the EPL is warranted
that considers the effects beyond points per
match and final league position that were
included in the present study. Further
research is required that accounts for the
limitations identified above and provides an
insight into the financial impact of manage-
rial change in the EPL given that this is
likely to carry further effects beyond final
league position such as paying an outgoing
manager compensation for termination of
their contract. In addition, in light of the
Union of European Football Association’s
financial fair play rules that were introduced
from the 2011 to 2012 season where there is a
window of three years allowing clubs aggre-
gate losses of E45 million, it would be
worth revisiting this topic as it is likely that
finishing in a higher league position would
be more important due to increased prize
money meaning greater capital to spend.
CONCLUSION
The impact of managerial change in football
is likely to have a number of implications
and with a relatively high number of
changes in the EPL, whether it is the right
decision or not requires careful consider-
ation. The findings of the present study
suggest that it can have a beneficial impact
on points per match and can improve final
league standings of clubs in the bottom
half. Experts have stated that relegation
from the EPL instantly costs clubs around
£25 million in revenue. This loss increases
with every subsequent season that clubs
fail to obtain promotion as parachute pay-
ments decrease. It is envisaged that this esti-
mate will only rise due to the increasing
broadcasting deals that will run from the
seasons 2013/2014 to 2016/2017. Conse-
quently, the finding that managerial change
for clubs in the bottom half of the league
leads to an improvement in final league pos-
ition becomes increasingly relevant. Given
that research in this area is relatively
 10
sparse, the present study should serve as a
catalyst for further research examining the
impact of managerial change in football
clubs.
REFERENCES
Audas, R., Dobson, S., & Goddard, J. (2002). Team
performance and managerial change in the
English football league. Economic Affairs, 17,
Downloaded by [Sheffield Hallam University], [Daniel Plumley] at 00:07 01 May 2014
30 –36.
Bell, A., Brooks, C., & Markham, T. (2013). The per-
formance of football club managers: Skill or
luck? Economics and Finance Research, 1,
19 –30.
Brown, M. C. (1982). Administrative succession
and organizational performance: The succes-
sion effect. Administrative Science Quarterly,
27, 1 –16.
Bruinshoofd, A., & ter Weel, B. (2003). Manager to
go? Performance dips reconsidered with evi-
dence from Dutch football. European Journal
of Operational Research, 148, 233 –246.
Cools, K., & van Praag, C. (2004). The value rel-
evance of forced top management departures.
Discussion Paper 03-051/3. Amsterdam: Tin-
bergen Institute.
Deloitte. (2013). Annual review of football finance:
Turn on, tune in, turnover. Manchester: Sport
Business Group.
De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2012). The effects of
managerial turnover: Evidence from coach
dismissals in Italian soccer teams. Journal of
Sports Economics, 13, 152 –168.
Dobson, S., & Goddard, J. (2011). The economics of
football (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Frick, B., & Simmons, R. (2008). The impact of
managerial quality on organizational perform-
ance: Evidence from German soccer. Manage-
rial and Decision Economics, 29, 593 –600.
Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Jumping through hoops:
A longitudinal study of leader life cycles in the
NBA. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 607 –624.
Gonzalez-Gomez, F., Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., & Garcia-
Rubio, M. A. (2011). The impact of a mid-
season change of manager on sporting per-
formance. Sport Business and Management:
An International Journal, 1, 28 –42.
View publication stats
Flint et al.
Groves, T., Hing, Y., McMilan, J., & Naughton, B.
(1995). China’s evolving managerial labor
market. Journal of Political Economy, 103,
873 –891.
Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and
organizational effectiveness. American
Journal of Sociology, 69, 21 –31.
Hope, C. (2003). When should you sack a football
manager? Results from a simple model applied
to the English Premiership. Journal of the Oper-
ational Research Society, 54, 1167–1176.
Hudson, R., Malatesta, P., & Parrino, R. (2004).
Managerial succession and firm performance.
Journal of Political Economy, 74, 237 –275.
Koning, R. H. (2003). An econometric evaluation of
the effect of firing a coach on team perform-
ance. Applied Economics, 35, 555 –564.
McTeer, W., White, P. G., & Persad, S. (1995).
Manager/coach mid-season replacement and
team performance in professional team
sport. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 18, 58 –68.
Rowe, W. G., Cannella, A. A. Jr. Rankin, D., &
Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession and
organizational performance: Integrating the
common sense, ritual scapegoating, and
vicious-circle succession theories. The Lea-
dership Quarterly, 16, 197–219.
Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management and
organisational dynamics: The challenge of com-
plexity (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Tena, J., & Forrest, D. (2007). Within-season
dismissal of football coaches: Statistical
analysis of causes and consequences. Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, 181,
362 –373.
The Football Association Premier League Limited.
(2012). Premier league season review 2011/12.
London: The Football Association.
Warner, J. B., Watts, R. L., & Wruck, K. H. (1988).
Stock prices and top management changes.
Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 461– 492.
Warzynski, F. (2000). The causes and consequences
of managerial change in Ukraine and the
complementarity of reforms. Working paper,
LIKOS Centre for Transition Economics:
K. U. Luven.
Weisbach, M. (1998). Outside directors and CEO
turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 20,
431 –460.