- Maxi Rodriguez
With news of Fabio Capello’s departure from the England post yesterday came the expected flood of “experts” speculating on potential replacements based on nothing more than years’ old rumors. With names ranging from the seemingly pre-agreed upon alternate Harry Redknapp, to Ian Holloway, Stuart Pearce and Guus Hiddink, there was a disturbing trend towards the English manager. A sentiment seemingly backed by the tired nationalism which supposedly expired with the end of the Second World War. It would be understandable, even reasonable, to dismiss proclamations like “English jobs for English managers,” but the rhetoric does bring up an interesting question. Strip away the bigotry, xenophobia, tribalism, and domestic insecurities, and you’re left with an engaging question: is there any validity to the idea that national teams ought to be coached by domestic-born managers?
If you look to the popular economic books written about football, like Simon Kuper’s Soccernomics, the answer would depend on the country. The usual idea is that economic superiority in Western Europe and dedication to the game in certain South American countries enabled the development of comparatively stronger soccer cultures, in terms of talent, coaching, and overall sporting structure. Like theories of economics in which the diffusion of technology can prompt increased growth rates for developing nations, the general recommendation is that foreign coaching, specifically European coaching, can expedite a developing country’s footballing success.
In essence, domestic coaches can maintain the superiority of strong footballing nations based on their advanced techniques, while countries suffering a deficit of footballing success can be hindered by the supposed inadequacy of their own domestic coaches.
Historical results, taken at face value, seem to support this assertion. The two most respected international competitions, the World Cup and the European Championship, have been dominated by those countries identified by Kuper and Co. as excelling in population, income, and footballing history. Furthermore, only once has the winner of these competitions been led by a foreign manager. Convincing facts if you ignore the caveats associated with those trophies.
English jobs for English workers.
— Wayne from Manchester
The real conclusion from this data? Powerhouse countries have won more often due to long-term associations with the game. Because of these associations, they have strong domestic structures and haven’t had to look elsewhere for coaches. Similarly, foreign coaches haven’t been given many opportunities with these leading nations. Helpful conclusion for the vast majority of teams? Not really. Good teams have dominated the game. We get it.
The second conclusion from Soccernomics, that the diffusion of coaches from advanced footballing nations can embolden a developing nation, is more problematic. Considering that international competitions have been dominated by leading nations like France and Brazil, it’s difficult to quantify the success that developing nations have had with coaches from the core footballing nations. There’s simply no way to adequately quantify the effect of foreign coaches without spending years locked in a room with a copy of Excel 97′ and access to Wikipedia.
Kuper’s book claims that “importing know-how from the core [countries]” proved “an excellent remedy for the problem of isolation,” pointing to English and Russian successes under Sven Goran Eriksson and Guus Hiddink, respectively. While these performances are laudable, they also display the limitations in Kuper’s general stance on foreign coaches.
While Sven Goran Eriksson and Guus Hiddink are talented coaches, many of the “core coaches” who ventured outside of Europe, to places like Nigeria and Ghana, simply aren’t. Kuper’s stance is based on an untenable view that all core coaches are better than their “native” counterparts. Even worse is the widespread acceptance in the real world that any European coach will always be better than any domestic option for a developing nation.
Was Ghana’s decision to appoint Goran Stevanovic as coach for this year’s African Cup of Nations a sound idea? Not at all. Was the hiring influenced by a preoccupation with euro-centrism? Most definitely.
The truth is that for most developing nations, hiring a good European coach is an unreasonable goal. Jose Mourinho is just as unlikely to coach Equatorial Guinea as Arsene Wenger is to win this year’s Premiership. In cases in which a respected foreigner is unavailable, wouldn’t it be better to turn inwards than simply hire the next person who happens to have a European passport?
Domestic coaches typically have easier times coddling fragile egos, leveraging support with the domestic FA, and have more nuanced understandings of both the domestic style and the available player pool. In a sport in which man-management and selection most influence results, why wouldn’t you select a well-respected domestic coach instead of a European who has a vague grasp of the training methods used in the German Second Division? Similarly, wouldn’t it be best to to hire someone invested in the side, rather than inhibit their growth due a revolving door of hired guns?
The most dangerous development in football over the last 20 years has not been flopping or excessive wages for players, but rather, the euro-centric viewpoint which has spread worldwide that presupposes that the European way is inherently better. Certain European coaches are good, but many are not. Instead of sparking the growth of developing nations, the reverence afforded to European coaches has instead impeded any progress.
So while the English preoccupation with hiring English managers may be based more on narrow-mindedness than any sound consideration, for many countries, sticking with a domestic coach is a reasonable footballing decision. Strip away the discrimination that typically surrounds the conversation, and you have a reasonable viewpoint.
Imports and Exports: On National Team Coaches
- Maxi Rodriguez
With news of Fabio Capello’s departure from the England post yesterday came the expected flood of “experts” speculating on potential replacements based on nothing more than years’ old rumors. With names ranging from the seemingly pre-agreed upon alternate Harry Redknapp, to Ian Holloway, Stuart Pearce and Guus Hiddink, there was a disturbing trend towards the English manager. A sentiment seemingly backed by the tired nationalism which supposedly expired with the end of the Second World War. It would be understandable, even reasonable, to dismiss proclamations like “English jobs for English managers,” but the rhetoric does bring up an interesting question. Strip away the bigotry, xenophobia, tribalism, and domestic insecurities, and you’re left with an engaging question: is there any validity to the idea that national teams ought to be coached by domestic-born managers?1
If you look to the popular economic books written about football, like Simon Kuper’s Soccernomics, the answer would depend on the country. The usual idea is that economic superiority in Western Europe and dedication to the game in certain South American countries enabled the development of comparatively stronger soccer cultures, in terms of talent, coaching, and overall sporting structure. Like theories of economics in which the diffusion of technology can prompt increased growth rates for developing nations, the general recommendation is that foreign coaching, specifically European coaching, can expedite a developing2 country’s footballing success.
In essence, domestic coaches can maintain the superiority of strong footballing nations based on their advanced techniques, while countries suffering a deficit of footballing success can be hindered by the supposed inadequacy of their own domestic coaches.
Historical results, taken at face value, seem to support this assertion. The two most respected international competitions, the World Cup and the European Championship, have been dominated by those countries identified by Kuper and Co. as excelling in population, income, and footballing history. Furthermore, only once has the winner of these competitions been led by a foreign manager.3 Convincing facts if you ignore the caveats associated with those trophies.
The real conclusion from this data? Powerhouse countries have won more often due to long-term associations with the game. Because of these associations, they have strong domestic structures and haven’t had to look elsewhere for coaches. Similarly, foreign coaches haven’t been given many opportunities with these leading nations. Helpful conclusion for the vast majority of teams? Not really. Good teams have dominated the game. We get it.
The second conclusion from Soccernomics, that the diffusion of coaches from advanced footballing nations can embolden a developing nation, is more problematic. Considering that international competitions have been dominated by leading nations like France and Brazil, it’s difficult to quantify the success that developing nations have had with coaches from the core footballing nations. There’s simply no way to adequately quantify the effect of foreign coaches without spending years locked in a room with a copy of Excel 97′ and access to Wikipedia.
Kuper’s book claims that “importing know-how from the core [countries]” proved “an excellent remedy for the problem of isolation,” pointing to English and Russian successes under Sven Goran Eriksson and Guus Hiddink, respectively. While these performances are laudable, they also display the limitations in Kuper’s general stance on foreign coaches.
While Sven Goran Eriksson and Guus Hiddink are talented coaches, many of the “core coaches” who ventured outside of Europe, to places like Nigeria and Ghana, simply aren’t. Kuper’s stance is based on an untenable view that all core coaches are better than their “native” counterparts. Even worse is the widespread acceptance in the real world that any European coach will always be better than any domestic option for a developing nation.
Was Ghana’s decision to appoint Goran Stevanovic as coach for this year’s African Cup of Nations a sound idea? Not at all. Was the hiring influenced by a preoccupation with euro-centrism? Most definitely.
The truth is that for most developing nations, hiring a good European coach is an unreasonable goal. Jose Mourinho is just as unlikely to coach Equatorial Guinea as Arsene Wenger is to win this year’s Premiership. In cases in which a respected foreigner is unavailable, wouldn’t it be better to turn inwards than simply hire the next person who happens to have a European passport?
Domestic coaches typically have easier times coddling fragile egos, leveraging support with the domestic FA, and have more nuanced understandings of both the domestic style and the available player pool. In a sport in which man-management and selection most influence results, why wouldn’t you select a well-respected domestic coach instead of a European who has a vague grasp of the training methods used in the German Second Division? Similarly, wouldn’t it be best to to hire someone invested in the side, rather than inhibit their growth due a revolving door of hired guns?
The most dangerous development in football over the last 20 years has not been flopping or excessive wages for players, but rather, the euro-centric viewpoint which has spread worldwide that presupposes that the European way is inherently better. Certain European coaches are good, but many are not. Instead of sparking the growth of developing nations, the reverence afforded to European coaches has instead impeded any progress.
So while the English preoccupation with hiring English managers may be based more on narrow-mindedness than any sound consideration, for many countries, sticking with a domestic coach is a reasonable footballing decision. Strip away the discrimination that typically surrounds the conversation, and you have a reasonable viewpoint.