November 10, 2007
Dear Economist: Were Tottenham right to sack Martin Jol?
Dear Economist,
Were Tottenham right to sack Martin Jol?
A Spurs fan
Dear Spurs fan,
Let me explain to the unconverted that Martin Jol was the manager of Tottenham Hotspur, the second-most successful football club in north London. Jol inspired good results in the past, but the club’s recent performance has been poor.
Were Tottenham wrong to sack him? Many lament the rapid turnover of football managers, and note that the two most successful premiership sides, Manchester United and Arsenal, have the longest-serving managers. But how do the numbers stack up?
Christopher Hope is an economist at Cambridge University specialising in the costs of sacking football managers (and the costs of climate change). He estimates that when a manager is replaced, the typical team loses more than 10 league points from the disruption, equivalent to three wins and a draw. The cost of paying off the manager’s contract means less money to pay players and so a further modest points loss.
Nevertheless, Hope’s analysis recommends that clubs should sack their managers more often. He has concluded that the following algorithm would improve the performance of premiership clubs. Any new manager should have an eight-match honeymoon, during which time he is safe from sacking. After that, his average results should stay above a miserly 0.74 point per game; that average should be weighted to put about half the emphasis on the most recent five games.
Jol averaged 1.57 points per game last season, but just 0.7 points this season and 0.6 points in his last five games.
I believe Hope would have sacked him. But what would I care? I’m an Arsenal fan.
Questions to economist@ft.com
Here a Spurs fan asks his consultant Dear Economist whether Tottenham was right to sack Martin Jolt and, after giving a lengthy answer, in a spur of professional rectitude, the consultant discloses a serious conflict of interest, namely that he is an Arsenal fan. So what is the Spur fan to do with the advice? We all know that a simple disclosure of a conflict of interest has precious little to do with the removal of it, and in doubt analyze the low correlation between disclosure policies and the humongous failure bonuses paid out to leaving top executives.
For a true Arsenal fan, and I have no reason to doubt Dear Economist’s sincerity about that, the human resource policies of other clubs must clearly be of vital importance. If they are too good he will short term probably be on the suffering end but then again, if they are too bad, everyone lose out long term as the league goes into disrepute.
I know someone could say that in this case Dear Economist dutifully refrained from giving his opinion but quoted instead the algorithms of a colleague Mr. Christopher Hope, but that is a very dubious guarantee of objectivity, not only because Dear Economist picked out the algorithm he wanted to show, but also because these days algorithms are not what they used to be and are so flexible so as to be capable of making simultaneous winners of both long and short positions, as long as there are stimulating commissions involved, and not that I suggest, God forbid, that Dear Economist has Hope on the take, or Hope has Dear Economist.
Dear Mr. Spur fan, let me advice you the same way the bank regulators currently advice you to do with respect to the advice given by the credit rating agencies they themselves imposed on the market, namely that only fools would follow their advice blindly.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | November 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Report this comment