Sacking a manager mid-season usually pointless, says Jan van Ours

According to Van Ours, results often improve after a dismissal, but that improvement would likely have occurred even if the manager had stayed. ‘After the dismissal things improve, but if he had not been dismissed, they would also have improved,’ he concludes. Part of the fluctuation in performance, he argues, is simply down to chance.

For his study, Van Ours analysed eight seasons in Europe’s five major leagues: England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Clubs earned slightly more points per match on average after a managerial change. However, when he compared those results with similar situations in which no dismissal took place, performances improved just as often.

The phenomenon also has a psychological explanation, Van Ours says. Directors want to show that they are taking action when results are disappointing. ‘If you do nothing and it continues to go badly, then as a board you have failed. It is worse to do nothing.’

There are exceptions. In some cases a change of manager works out well; in others it makes matters worse. On average, however, the situation remains the same. Factors such as the composition of the squad also play a role. In teams with large differences in player quality, a dismissal has even less impact, as the best players will continue to make the difference regardless. Van Ours’s conclusion is clear: clubs that sack a manager mid-season in the hope of structural improvement are more often acting out of emotion than rational calculation. ‘On average, the situation remains the same, and logic is hard to find.’