Does Appointing a…

Last season, Manchester United finished in 15th place and improved to eighth in 2023-24. They had a brief stint at third during the 2022-23 season but ended the previous one in sixth place. Notably, United has recorded a net-zero goal differential or worse in three of the last four seasons, making mediocrity a familiar theme.

So when they dismissed manager Ruben Amorim earlier this month, without a successor lined up, where did they stand in the league? Was it 16th or maybe 12th, indicating slight progress but not enough for a club that ranks as the fourth richest globally? When Manchester United parted ways with Amorim, they were actually tied for fifth place.

If that decision sounds irrational, consider the actions of another high-profile club with even greater financial resources. Real Madrid terminated manager Xabi Alonso following a cup final defeat against Barcelona. Madrid too had no replacement ready, and this loss fell in the midst of an intense, long-standing rivalry—akin to Michigan vs. Ohio State—where even a defeat can overshadow a championship win.

However, this loss was not during the Champions League final or even the Copa Del Rey; it was the Spanish Super Cup, arguably the fifth most significant tournament for either team this season. Curiously, the final rounds of this competition are now hosted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, during the winter months in Spain.

You might think this was a frustration-driven decision due to a Champions League struggle, but quite the opposite is true. Real Madrid is currently on track to secure a first-round bye—better than last year’s performance. In La Liga, they trail first place by just four points, and their expected goal differential, a key indicator of potential future performance, is the best in Spain.

This means both Manchester United and Real Madrid are on the brink of successful seasons; Madrid has opportunities to clinch both Champions League and La Liga titles, while United is actively competing for Champions League qualification after just escaping relegation a year prior. Yet, both clubs opted to fire their managers without securing replacements.

They have indicated plans to fill those roles in the summer, as evidenced by the announcements that Alvaro Arbeloa and Michael Carrick will serve as interim coaches until the season’s end. Both clubs still have much at stake, yet they (A) dismissed their young and costly managers and (B) didn’t appoint someone reliable to lead in the interim.

While it’s uncertain if this is a calculated strategy, doesn’t it appear as if both Madrid and Manchester are signaling that the impact of managers isn’t as significant as commonly perceived?

---

– Ranking the USMNT’s top U-21 prospects of 2026
– ‘Head coach’ vs. ‘manager’: Why title matters for Man United
– Predicting Premier League table: How will all 20 teams finish?

---

Why Managers Matter — and Why They Don’t

The analysis of coaching effects is a discipline often overlooked, as the quest to quantify a soccer coach’s value tends to not earn the same respect as studies focused on health sciences or anthropology. Sports professionals might dismiss such findings, labeling them as irrelevant.

Most studies suggest that coaches don’t significantly impact results, a conclusion that feels simultaneously accurate and inaccurate.

It’s inaccurate because there are numerous instances where coaches like Jurgen Klopp reshaped Liverpool‘s style and results, and demonstrated coaches such as Pep Guardiola transformed Manchester City into a powerhouse. The influence of coaches like Jurgen Klinsmann on the U.S. men’s national team and Diego Maradona coaching Argentina serve as case in point. Coaches possess the ability to elevate player performance and implement specific strategies that can alter team dynamics.

Even non-experts can understand this impact—those who have participated in sports will recall coaches that either cultivated their skills or drove them away from competition altogether.

However, managers could be less vital than we generally believe for a couple of reasons. The first reason is vividly illustrated by the nature of coaching itself: coaches don’t play. As legendary player and coach Johan Cruyff once stated, “If your players are better than your opponents, 90% of the time, you will win.”

Consider this analogy: if an average fan managed France at the World Cup while Klopp led the USMNT, France would still be favored. Conversely, if the average fan played center forward for France and Kylian Mbappé played for the USMNT, the latter would have a competitive edge.

This underscores the second point: the pool of capable managers is far larger than that of players who can deliver top-tier success.

Even a poor coach who can’t select their best players or undermine their chances of winning won’t have a chance to manage at the Champions League level. Consequently, research often shows negligible differences among many elite managers over extended periods. Certain coaching styles may synergize well with specific players at certain times, but many coaches struggle to maintain consistent value as team dynamics evolve.

A study presented at last year’s Sloan Sports Analytics Conference by George Ferridge revealed a condensed view of managerial analytics: most managers cluster around average performance, with only a few outliers demonstrating either significantly positive or negative impacts on results.

“This indicates that while many managers have little to no correlation with player performance, a number of managers are associated with either largely positive or largely negative deviations in those performances,” Ferridge concluded, reinforcing the notion that top-level managers’ impact may vary widely.

Similarly, a 2010 study titled “The performance of football club managers: skill or luck?” controlled for team results against wages, transfer spending, and injuries to assess managerial impact. Interestingly, this study identified a specific trend: lacking a permanent manager often yields better results than having one.

“Of the 60 managers studied, it’s noteworthy that not having a permanent manager at all ranks ninth in performance,” wrote the study’s authors.

The Logic and Risks of Caretaker Coaches

This raises an important question: what does it signify when lacking a manager often outperforms having one? The authors speculate that players might exert greater effort under a caretaker manager out of concern for their futures.

It would border on absurd to assert that Manchester United and Real Madrid (A) are consciously aware of this research and (B) are disastrously misinterpreting it to think that forgoing a permanent coach will enhance their performance. Nevertheless, it reflects a trend in modern soccer that both clubs—among the world’s biggest and striving for achievable objectives—have opted for short-term management from former players lacking experience at the Champions League level.

Arbeloa has never held any management position, while Carrick has yet to coach in any top league.

The circumstances surrounding both clubs’ decisions diverged significantly. Under Jim Ratcliffe’s part ownership, United seeks modernization, aiming to involve various personnel in roster management, leading to Amorim’s ousting after he voiced reluctance to engage in this evolution. Conversely, Madrid’s decision to fire Alonso stemmed from a desire for a traditional approach; they still rely heavily on player and president input, which conflicted with Alonso’s modern tactical strategy that overwhelmed his star players.

Despite the differences, there is a coherent rationale behind both decisions—assuming the managerial situations were truly unsustainable. It’s a big “if,” especially given the built-in dysfunction both clubs have shown over time. But if it’s true that only a few coaches can enhance team performance, a prudent wait to secure one of those rare candidates could be worthwhile. It’s unlikely such remarkable coaches would be available mid-season, particularly with several potential hires expected to hit the market after this summer’s World Cup.

So rather than risk making another hasty and costly long-term hire following a previous expensive decision, is it wiser to opt for a more economical interim option for the remainder of the season? Particularly if the prevailing assumption is that most coaches do not significantly sway results.

History has shown that interim managers can achieve notable success; both in past studies and in more recent instances. Chelsea won the Champions League in 2012 with Roberto Di Matteo as their interim manager. In December 2019, Bayern Munich dismissed Niko Kovac, appointing caretaker Hansi Flick, who secured their Champions League victory by season’s end. Gareth Southgate received knighthood for his work as manager of England, a position he initially held on a temporary basis. Memorable too is Mario Zagallo, who led Brazil to the World Cup title in 1970 shortly after assuming the role.

However, the potential drawback of hiring an interim coach is the chance of selecting someone who underperforms. By definition, appointing from a less-accomplished pool increases the probability of hiring an ineffective manager. For example, Tottenham replaced Antonio Conte with interim Cristian Stellini, who ended up being let go and was followed by interim Ryan Mason—both periods resulting in a stark decline from previous performance.

This represents the paradox in the managerial landscape shared by Manchester and Madrid: Hiring a coach can be a transformative, albeit expensive, gamble. However, the more plausible scenario is a failure to significantly alter performance, and the most probable outcome for both United and Madrid is a continuation of their current level—one that led to both clubs dismissing their recent managers.