There’s a few things on this, that I will try to explore here – one is the myth of Sporting Directors being a more “stable” position, when compared to the Head Coaches.

I’ve recently shared a study made to the Big-5 (at The Premier League, average SD tenure is less than 2 Season, for example…) and also expanded my studies to the Portuguese scene, where the average tenure is less than 3 Seasons.

Therefore, yes, objectively, a Sporting Director, or Director of Football, have tenures that are longer than Coaches. 

However, assuming that 2 or 3 years is a “stable” position at any Company, at any Business sector, it’s also questionable, or unlikely.

Subjective, though.

The discussion should, then, be another, in a world that is asking for Stability, when all stakeholders play a different game.

And data does show a different reality.

Hence, one must assume that, in general:
Coaches change.

Just as Sporting Directors.

But Models shouldn’t.

This is one of the most misunderstood dynamics in Football Governance.

Results may fluctuate.
Cycles evolve.
Leadership changes.

But Institutions that depend entirely on a single Coach are not Structured Organizations.

They are temporary Projects.

And temporary Projects rarely sustain Competitive Performance.

The Illusion of Alignment

Many Clubs believe they are aligned.

Until the Coach leaves.

Then everything collapses.

Recruitment priorities then change.
Profiles no longer fit the new Coach.
Players suddenly look “wrong”, they no longer fit the Coach’s Style.
The Squad becomes unbalanced.

At that moment, the real problem becomes visible:

There was never Alignment.

There was Dependency.

Dependency on one Personality, a Tactical idea, or a Leadership style.

But Institutions cannot depend on Individuals.

They must design Structures that survive them.

The Role of the Sporting Director

The Role of a Sporting Director is not only to support the current Coach.

It is to Protect the Institution across Cycles.

That requires Thinking beyond the present moment.

A Sporting Director must always Operate in multiple timelines:

The current Season.
The next Coaching transition.
And the Cycle after that.

In other words:

A Sporting Director must think three coaches ahead.

Because Stability requires Preparation.

A big Theme: Tactical Continuity

This does not mean all Coaches must be identical.

Football evolves.

Ideas evolve.

But the Identity of the Club should remain recognizable.

Recruitment Profiles must fit a broader Game Philosophy.

Development Pathways must reflect Long-Term Playing Principles.

As an example: would you expect Clubs as Manchester City, PSG, Bayern München or FC Barcelona to hire Diego Simeone, currently at Atlético Madrid? 

Would that be so weird to see if he was targeted by Chelsea FC? Manchester United? Or, even, Real Madrid FC?
Why?

Simple: Because each build their own Identity, their Culture.
And Continuity protects Performance.

Succession Planning

Hence, how to to provide Clarity in Succession Planning?

Coaching Transitions should never feel improvised.

Yet many Clubs approach them as emergencies, unexpected episodes.

When Results drop, Emotions pop-up, and Decisions accelerate.

Time Pressure replaces Strategic Thinking.

Institutions that Sustain success treat Succession Planning as a structural Responsibility.

They constantly evaluate:

• Which Profiles could continue our Football Identity?
• Which Leadership Styles fit our Culture?
• Which Tactical Approaches remain compatible with our Squad?
• What’s their Contract Status? How could we reach them, if needed?
• And so on…

Succession is based on something simple: Preparation.

Recruitment Beyond Personal Preference

One of the most common Structural mistakes in Football Recruitment is allowing it to be driven by Individual preference.

And here, another important disclaimer: many Football Clubs are still managed this way!!

A dinner, a phone call, where subjective opinions are thrown to the discussion and someone says “Oh, that one is limited!”, and another “This one is good, I like him”.

It keeps going, with NO Structure whatsoever.

However, it’s real – literally happens like this.

But Recruitment Policy should always be larger than the current Coach.

It should define:

• Age profiles.
• Technical attributes.
• Athletic requirements.
• Financial ceilings.
• Development potential.

This protects the Club when Leadership inevitably changes.

There’s data supporting potential targets (Players, Coaches, Sporting Directors…), Reports made to confirm the Processes, supportive tools for whoever arrives to understand what’s been done.

Otherwise, every transition becomes a reset.

And resets are expensive.

Financial Planning Across Cycles

Funny enough, Coaching changes do not only affect Tactics, but it also affects Financial Planning.

Contract Structures.
Transfer Timing.
Squad depth.
Wage balance.

Without Long-Term Planning, every new Cycle increases Financial Pressure.

Stability requires Financial Decisions that anticipate Future transitions.

Not only current needs.

Therefore, the real Responsibility of a Sporting Director is not simply managing today’s Performances.

It is protecting tomorrow’s Stability.

It’s not about being emotional, or even fake to anyone you’re working with.

The story repeats:

• A Club may win matches.
• But Institutions sustain Cycles.
• And Cycles are never accidental.
• Again, they are designed.

Building better Clubs, more prepared Structures – creating a Path for Success.