Football clubs in this day and age regularly preach that football is now a business, not a sport.

That in itself is a topic for another day, but the main contradiction is that if it's a business, why do the majority of clubs hire their most important person-the manager-without a well executed plan and process?

Do successful business' fire a CEO one day and appoint a new one two days later? Not generally.

European football could learn alot about hiring the right man - and therefore increasing the chances of long term success - by following a solid process from Australian Rules Football (AFL).

In the late 1980's, AFL used to follow a similar hiring process to which football uses in most cases currently. A coach was sacked one day and a new man appointed within days.

However, this started to change in the 1990s as clubs started to treat their clubs like a business, focussing on vitals like long term sustainability, stability and succession plans.

Coaches soon became head-hunted, and in interviews prospective coaches had to outline their vision and strategy for the future.

Currently, those applying for coaching positions have to undergo more than one interview, discussing where they think the club is at currently, where they want to take the club and most importantly, how they are going to achieve that.

This process lasts a couple of weeks at the minimum but generally results in hiring the right man, which becomes a win/win because the coach will likely get a longer shelf life and the club seeks the stability a long term coach brings.

If we compare that lengthy process to the one we see in European football then we notice some drastic differences. In most cases, if a club hasn't appointed a new manager in two weeks then they are portrayed by the media to be sluggish.

As a result of the pressure, the hiring process has often been as simple as a Chairman phoning an agent to check availability of a candidate.

There seems to be very little screening process involving questions such as,"This is where we are at, and this is where we want to get to. Can you achieve that and how?", What culture and values will you bring to the club to enhance our brand?" and "What went wrong in your last job?"

The reason I include the third question is because it has always baffled me as to why managers who get sacked at most of their jobs always seem to find a new club keen to secure their services.

Two great examples are Graeme Sounness and Claudio Ranieri. Souness has managed eight clubs and was either sacked or left on bad terms with six of them. Ranieri has been sacked in four of his last six jobs, and the other two he left under extreme pressure following poor results. This doesn't deter clubs though, and Ranieri has just been hired by one of Europe's biggest clubs.

The recycling of sacked coaches is an area the two codes differ dramatically.

In recent times, sacked AFL coaches have seemingly been black-listed. Former coaches such as Terry Wallace, Matthew Knights and Rodney Eade have not been close contenders for any vacant posts since, as clubs prefer to choose untried, former assistant coaches.

In 2012, only two coaches in the AFL will have coached more than one club, and both of those are only at their second club.

Contrast that to the EPL where Harry Redknapp is at his fifth job and Steve Bruce is at his fourth club. Alan Pardew is probably the best example of hiring gone mad, even though he is seemingly doing a good job currently.

Having been sacked at West Ham and Southampton, and leaving Charlton Athletic by "mutual consent" soon after his own fans stayed behind for an hour after a match to chant "We want Pardew out", Pardew landed the manager's job at Newcastle some 48hours after it sacked Chris Hughton.

Having a good track record and passing a process to find the best man for the job is not always required, it seems.

The Counter argument is that top line clubs in Europe can't afford to take drastic risks by appointing an unknown or unproven manager as the repurcussions are far greater.

In AFL, if things go horribly wrong, worst case scenario is you sack the coach mid-season and have a caretaker for the rest of the season. If you finish bottom then all that happens is you get the first pick of the young talent in the next seasons draft, plus you get a little bit of embarrassment at finishing last.

In Europe, big clubs do not want to risk finishing bottom because then they get relegated to a lower division and the club can collapse from that point. Leeds United is the classic example of that. They were a Premier League powerhouse until they sold a few key players, had some bad injuries and the resultant poor form ended with relegation.

Being relegated also means your assets (players) are de-valued. Players who are part of a non-performing team are likely to be worth much less now than what was paid for them in the prior years.

So how can clubs solve the woes and get out of the mediocrity they are stuck in? Find a successful model and copy it.

The two longest serving managers in England were not hired overnight or on a whim. They were sought out and the clubs ensured they were the right fit for the club.

Early in his tenure, Sir Alex Ferguson was under pressure from the media as things weren't going too well, but those who hired him had a plan and a vision and stuck to it. That patience and belief in the plan is what has helped propel Manchester United to be a European powerhouse.

The other is Arsene Wenger. When Arsenal were looking for a manager, they decided on Wenger but he was working in Asia at the time and wasn't prepared to leave his job there. Arsenal would have to wait a few months to get him, but they were prepared to do that because they thought he was the right fit for what the club wanted to achieve.

That turned out to be a very good decision, and I wonder how many other clubs would have been prepared to be manager-less for months to ensure they go their man.

Both appointments had a plan and a process and both have been very successful. Barcelona will be the next club to follow this formula.

Pep Guardiola has announced he will leave his managers post at Barcelona at the end of this season so Barcelona have enough time to seek out a replacement who can carry on his success and legacy for years to come.

The biggest European clubs understand the importance of a plan and having patience executing it. AFL understands it, too. Perhaps one day, it will become the norm rather than the exception for the majority of European clubs.

This Have Your Say article was written by fan Stephen Suttie.

 
Poll
Which will be the Qantas Socceroos' toughest game?


Comments (9)
 
There are two significant variables that the analysis of recruitment of coaches by AFL clubs compared to A-Leagues which lead the analysis redundent and not very useful. I totally agree A-League and European clubs should go through rigorous and dilligent recruitment processes and it seems naive of the author of the above story to presume it doesn't happen, it probably just doesn't happen consistently enough. The two problems here though are: 1. Size of market, Football as opposed to AFL, is a much bigger unregulated marketplace for coaches and players. Coaches and players in Football as opposed to AFL hold a lot more power than AFL. 2. Recruitment. AFL controls recruitment and rewards failure by giving poor perfomring teams first pick in a nationally controlled draft. In football recruitment is unregulated and driven by money with no salary caps (excluding the A-League) limiting recruitment.
Dino  |  
6 Jan 2012 03:09 PM
 
 
Interesting article, not from the AFL perspective but as a study of HAL coach selection. As a student of the game this is one area that has me perplexed. There seems to be no magic formula but rather a "fortunate coincidence" of a group of players, coach and philosophy that cannot be predicted. Ange at the Roar being a classic example. When he joined I, like many others, boycotted a few games as his appointment didn't seem to fit. But hey, were we wrong!! Given what's happened at AU, where they had a top class coach, who had a vision and 4 year plan to back it up but was axed and replaced by an unqualified coach with no plan because results didn't come quickly enough (Did they not understand the concept of a 4 year plan?) This highlights to me that the issue is around clubs not having a vision or plan that is based on football knowledge - probably because of a lack of football people in their management. Which returns nicely to your opening line that football is seen as a business and not a sport. And ROI is more important than footballing prowess.
BenofBNE  |  
5 Jan 2012 02:02 PM
 
 
I agree that Afl clubs have a more rigourous selection process than many european soccer clubs. However it is not just restricted to the Afl. Australian football clubs in leagues like Sanfl & and many local clubs undertake extensive recruitment processes. Australian football is also learning from.soccer with regards to coaching accreditation. The main area in which soccer can learn from australian football is the scientific advamces in.sports science. I believe the Ffa structure is also heavily based on.the.afl and they are copying many initiatoves such as indigenous development.
Fabio  |  
30 Dec 2011 02:47 AM
 
 
Hi guys, thanks for the feedback. I accept you can't compare the two different codes an awful lot, but one of the problems with writing the article was finding examples within football of a lengthy process that worked. There were not many-Arsenal, Man U and coming up Barcelona, so these 3 are examples of how few clubs are doing it. As Dean states, there is no evidence that a lengthy process creates success, but if you look at John Kosmina...Adelaide sacked Rini Coolen on a Sunday morning and appointed JK(who had already been sacked by Adelaide previously) on the same morning. I wrote the article prior to that happening, but to me, that was an perfect illustration of the silly, no-thought-process hiring I was inspired to write about.
Stephen Suttie  |  
29 Dec 2011 10:56 PM
 
 
Your comparing apples and oranges. AFL has a draft, there's no wind in football. AFL supporters will sit back and accept failure, hoping for success some time in the future. Football supporters will not accept mediocrity. AFL clubs will always be in the AFL. Football clubs cannot afford relegation (A League clubs need to be successful as the sports market is so competitive). Failure in AFL means getting to pick the crop of the best available players. Failure in football decreases your finances and the best footballers become too expensive. AFL clubs are owned by the members who in the main will accept longterm building processes. Football clubs are mainly privately owned and look for a quick return for their investments. As you can see, AFL coaches work in a very different enviroment to that of football coaches. There's pressure in both jobs, but an AFL coach would be secure for at least 12 months. Whereas there is no security for football coaches as we have seen some coaches sacked even before the start of the season.
Pat  |  
29 Dec 2011 01:21 PM
 
 
Good article, thanks. @Dean: Given that AFL coaches compete against other AFL coaches, not against European football managers, of course it's going to be difficult to find direct evidence for the AFL model being more successful than the European one . In terms of individual competitions, we're talking about a zero sum game here: AFL coaches operate in direct competition to each other, therefore all AFL clubs taking the same rigorous approach to hiring isn't ultimately going to lead to more AFL coachs succeeding in total (ultimately, for every AFL coach who succeeds another one must fail). Therefore, I agree with the articles assertion that the AFL model is a far more prudent one thant the European one, and don't believe failures of certain AFL coaches can be used to disqualify this arguement. To be fair you do acknowledge the intuitive sense of the main argument, so I largely agree with your post overall.
David  |  
29 Dec 2011 08:03 AM
 
 
Stephen - sounds like you have been reading Soccernomics. I am not sure you can compare the 2 sports directly because as you pointed out in AFL you are helped with the best draft picks when you come last and most coaches know it’ll only a matter of time before they trend upwards. It won’t be long before GC Suns and GWS win the comp and is that because they have the best coaches in the game? I doubt it... more like AFL engineering
the duke  |  
29 Dec 2011 07:19 AM
 
 
Question, if AFL CONTROLLED TEAM scks a coach would the AFL hire him for a other team ??? If a coach in the greatest game in the world is released he has thousands of (non league controlled teams) to ply his tade with,.
WILLIAM 11  |  
28 Dec 2011 06:40 PM
 
 
Whilst I agree with the premise that the process of hiring a new football coach needs to be conducted with more care, thought & diligence there is no evidence that such improved processes produces better results in AFL. In recent years, the following coaches were employed by AFL clubs after lengthy processes & a rigorous interview process but all FAILED miserably and were sacked: 1. Matthew Knights (ESS): 2. Terry Wallace (RIC) 3. Dean Bailey (MEL) 4. Rodney Eade (WB) 5. Gary Ayres (ADE) 6. Mark Harvey (FRE) Alistair Clarkson was, perhaps, a couple of games away from also getting the sack prior to Hawthorn's success in 2008. So, in my opinion, the AFL process is just as likely to be unsuccessful as successful. But, intuitively, I agree football clubs should take more care and diligence when choosing a coach. (Interestingly, MVFC went through a very lengthy process before hiring Mehmet Durakovic but this has not provided immediate success).
Dean  |  
28 Dec 2011 01:17 PM