Firing a manager is often more about maintaining the illusion of control

Analysis of why clubs fire managers based on 'vibes' rather than logic, using Michael Carrick's Manchester United situation as a case study.

In an era of advanced analytics, the decision to sack a manager often comes down to perception and circumstance rather than objective criteria. The article examines this paradox through Michael Carrick's precarious position at Manchester United, noting that while there is broad agreement the club's problems are structural and systemic—absolving Carrick of blame—there is also consensus he must go anyway.

The piece highlights the inconsistency in how clubs evaluate managers. Carrick was praised for his caretaker work last season and rewarded with the permanent job, yet the same tactical approach now viewed as deficient. His predecessor Ruben Amorim was hired because the club valued his dogmatic methods, then sacked for being too dogmatic and needing too much time to implement them.

The author argues that hanging on to managers often pays off, citing Sir Alex Ferguson's near-sacking in January 1990 before his legendary 27-year reign, and Mikel Arteta's multiple near-exits at Arsenal before becoming a title contender. Yet modern managers are rarely afforded the leeway to grow into their roles that Ferguson credited for his longevity.

The decision to fire appears driven by an undefined alchemy of results, available alternatives, and the absence of other scapegoats—a formula that feels unscientific yet universally accepted.