Coach Dismissals and the Illusion of a New Beginning

When a Bundesliga club is in a sporting crisis, the reaction in Germany is almost reflexively the same: the coach is dismissed. The press conference speaks of a necessary impulse, of fresh energy, of a new voice for the team. The market applauds. The fans breathe a sigh of relief.

And indeed, many clubs observe an upswing in the weeks that follow. The central question, however, long remained unanswered: Is this improvement really due to the new coach — or does it follow another, less visible pattern?

Humatrix examined this question in an independent research project — based on ten Bundesliga seasons, 3,060 matches, and 80 manually verified coaching changes. The methodology builds on the study published by Heuer and colleagues in PLOS ONE in 2011, transferred to the modern Bundesliga and expanded with a comprehensive robustness check. The results are revealing — but not in the way many might expect.

The average effect: small, but present

The Heuer methodology compares clubs that dismissed their coach during the season not with themselves, but with comparable clubs in exactly the same sporting situation that kept their coach. Only in this way is it possible to separate what can actually be attributed to the coaching change from what would have happened even without a change.

The results were calculated in parallel using three window sizes — 7, 10 and 13 matches before and after the dismissal. The pure coaching effect is consistently positive across all three windows:

• Window of 7 matches: +0.25 points per game (N=55, statistically significant)
• Window of 10 matches: +0.18 points per game (N=36, not significant)
• Window of 13 matches: +0.32 points per game (N=22, statistically significant)

Projected over half a season of 17 matches, this corresponds to an expected additional gain of around 3 to 5 points. That is a real, but small effect. In a relegation battle, 3 points can decide between staying up and the playoff — in a calm mid-table season they are barely noticeable. The actual finding, however, does not lie in the average.

The real finding: the dispersion

While the average coaching effect is small and manageable, the distribution of individual cases shows a completely different picture. The standard deviation of the coaching effect across all 36 evaluable cases is 0.59 points per game — around four times the mean.

Individual changes produce up to +1.2 points per match. Others cost up to −0.8 points per match. The range between a successful and an unsuccessful change is around 2 points per match — eight times the expected average effect. The most successful changes of the past decade — Nagelsmann at Hoffenheim, Stöger at Dortmund, Tuchel at Bayern — were real turnarounds. Others accelerated relegation. Both occurred under structurally similar starting conditions.

Put differently: in day-to-day Bundesliga operations, a coaching change is not the manageable corrective measure it is often portrayed to be. It is the riskiest single decision a club makes during a season.

Regression to the mean

A coach is usually dismissed after a phase that was significantly worse than expected — statistically, an outlier. After an outlier, performance tends to move back toward the long-term average, regardless of any intervention. This is known as regression to the mean.

The control group makes it visible: clubs in a comparable crisis that did not dismiss their coach recovered by an average of +0.17 points per match. Clubs that did dismiss recovered by +0.35. The difference of +0.18 is the part attributable to the change. The larger share of the observed upswing — around half — would have happened anyway. This is why the narrative of the new impulse is so persistent: it looks like an effect, although much of it was statistically expected.

The economic dimension

In the reality of a Bundesliga club, a coaching change is first of all an economic decision — of a magnitude regularly underestimated in public debate. Coaching contracts are generally fixed-term and cannot be terminated ordinarily; if a club parts ways early, the full remaining salary is generally still owed.

The sums are considerable. Julian Nagelsmann’s dismissal at FC Bayern in 2023 would have cost around €30 million in remaining salary had the contract run to 2026. For an average Bundesliga coach, direct severance costs usually fall between €2 million and €5 million — and that is only the visible tip. Additional factors apply:

• Double salary payments during the transition — the dismissed and the new coach are both paid.
• A transfer fee for the new coach if he is under contract elsewhere.
• The new appointment of the entire coaching staff — assistants, fitness coaches, analysts.
• Costs of adapting the playing philosophy: training materials, analysis tools, players who do not fit the new system.
• Indirect costs from increased personnel turnover afterwards.

In total, a coaching change in the Bundesliga typically costs between €5 million and €15 million even in mid-level scenarios — offset by an expected sporting gain of around 3 to 5 points. On average, it is an expensive measure with a limited return, while the dispersion ranges from securing survival to accelerating the crisis.

What explains success and failure

If the dispersion is eight times larger than the mean, the decisive lever is not whether a dismissal takes place — but the conditions under which the decision is made. Changes with a positive trajectory generally occur at clubs where:

• Roles between sporting director, board and coaching staff were clarified before the crisis — not renegotiated under acute pressure.
• The personality and leadership fit between the new coach and the squad was systematically considered, not only tactics.
• The team leadership group was compatible with the new coaching style.
• External communication was controlled and aligned with the internal reality.

Failed changes show the mirror image: blurred responsibilities, successors whose profile does not fit, dressing rooms without a stable leadership function. In none of these areas does the real problem lie on the tactical level. It lies in organisation, in personalities, and in the clarity of structures.

The question is usually asked too late

The challenge is temporal. Whether the structure around the coach is stable becomes acute only once the crisis has arrived — when every analysis is distorted by emotion and media pressure, and the decision is made under stress. Anyone who wants to make a truly informed change would need to ask the structural questions months before the crisis.

Humatrix at the intersection of structure and decision

Humatrix works precisely at this intersection. The method analyses personality profiles in squad and staff, role and decision structures in sporting management, and the fit between leadership style and team reality. This does not make the coaching question obsolete — it makes it informed. Not with a guarantee of success, but with a significantly lower risk of a catastrophic change.

The decisive question is no longer: Do we make a change? But: Do we understand the structure into which the new coach is entering?