This article will evaluate whether the large financial pay-offs which Premier League managers receive on their dismissal justify the reluctance of the mainstream media and legal commentators to analyse dismissal through the lens of the manager and position them appropriately as victims.

The article aims to conclude that a change in the perception of dismissed managers is needed, and such a change is an important step in the process of encouraging lawmakers to assess the practicality of the law of dismissal in the context of Premier League management.

Context and Background

Premier League clubs often pay large financial settlements when terminating a manager’s contract. Antonio Conte and his staff received over £26 million on his dismissal by Chelsea in 2018 [1]. Similarly, Jose Mourinho received £16 million from Tottenham in 2021 and £19.6 million from Manchester United in 2018. Erik ten Hag recently received around £16 million following his October 2024 dismissal from Manchester United.

Large pay-offs explain the disregard for dismissed managers’ employment rights, reflected in mainstream football media. Rarely are managers positioned as victims, with little scrutiny of dismissal fairness or its impact on managers. Instead, the media centres debates on the club, focusing on replacement strategies or how the manager failed to perform adequately during their tenure.

For example, following Erik ten Hag’s Manchester United dismissal, an article from Sky Sports emphasised its cost to the club, but largely neglected to discuss its impact on Ten Hag’s career and personal life [2]. This trend is also reflected in legal commentary. A Chambers Student commentator noted that while one might sympathise with managers, their substantial financial compensation often justifies neglecting the personal impacts of their dismissal, as these pay-offs provide sufficient financial security [3].

Are contractual pay-offs sufficient compensation?

Break Clauses

While some managers receive large compensation on dismissal, not all Premier League managers do. Clubs can include performance-related break clauses in contracts, reducing pay-offs if conditions are met. For instance, David Moyes received the value of just one year of his contract on his dismissal from Manchester United in 2014, after it became mathematically impossible to secure a top-four finish [4].

The inclusion of break clauses and strategic dismissals to meet their conditions may increase due to financial fair play regulations, which limit clubs to a £15 million loss over three years.

Although break clauses make pay-offs somewhat more tolerable, they remain substantial enough to reinforce the perception that managers’ employment rights are undeserving of attention.

Comparable Jobs

Finding a comparable job after dismissal is often challenging for managers. Premier League clubs, driven by the pressure to improve results quickly, generally prefer hiring managers who have recently had success. Therefore, a manager’s failure in a previous role can harm their reputation, as seen with Jose Mourinho.

Mourinho, after multiple dismissals, took a less lucrative role at AS Roma in 2021, earning £6.5 million annually—£3.5 million less than his salary at Tottenham [5]. Despite receiving over £35 million in compensation from Tottenham and Manchester United, these pay-outs did not fully offset the financial and reputational toll of his dismissals [3]. If Mourinho had retained his Premier League position, his career would likely have continued with lucrative contracts, emphasising that compensation often fails to mitigate the true financial impact of managerial terminations.

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and 5 minutes to ruin it” Warren Buffett

Stress of Job Insecurity

Premier League managers often feel their job is under threat during poor runs of results. The stress of potential dismissal is heightened by media attention, with decisions and speculation broadcast to millions. David Basset, a Premier League manager in the early 2000s, noted that media speculation—such as alluding to having “one game left”—exacerbates this stress [6]. With the average Premier League managerial tenure now at just 787 days, this anxiety of dismissal has worsened [7].

Managers also struggle with the challenge of frequent relocations. Families may face mental strain, with some choosing for the family to remain at home to avoid frequent school changes.

Additionally, the manager’s support staff are often collateral damage to a dismissal, as new managers bring their own staff on arrival, displacing existing members. The stress of job insecurity and dismissal affects these individuals too, yet their compensation is disproportionately lower compared to that of managers, meaning the consequences of dismissal are particularly unfair.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this article has shown that in many cases the financial pay-off a dismissed manager receives does not sufficiently compensate them. On one hand, the payoff they receive does not reliably reflect the true economic loss they feel. On the other hand, the impacts of dismissal span wider than merely economic impacts.

Therefore, this article serves to encourage a greater appreciation of all of the impacts of a manager’s dismissal, specifically analysing how the law is facilitating the accelerating trend of dismissal cases in the Premier League.

Jack Doyle (UK) – Editor (LinkedIn)

Jack is a recent MA Law conversion graduate (PGDL) from the University of Law Manchester. He is currently pursuing a legal career, with a particular interest in sports law, including areas such as employment law and contract law.

References

Leave a comment