Are players in a better position than managers when it come to job security.?

[Magic magpie]

Just recently I’ve been thinking about players and managers.. the one thing I’ve come to is that players have job security in comparison to a coach or a manger.

we see it all the time if a team performs poorly it’s the gaffer than suffers by being sacked.

 where players don’t get sacked maybe released at the end of the season .. but if they perform poor under one manager they get a second chance with the new manager.

Am i the only one who thinks this isn’t right and that why should players almost be guaranteed a job and managers are sacked.

whats your thoughts guys on this please?

[Chris Website URL Visit Site 𝕏 fmcj10 Instagram fmcj10]

Yeah, players are much better protected because they have the resale value and most are inclined to blame the manager.

I always think if a player responds after a manager is sacked, then it sums them up as a person especially if they try harder. I think even when we think of troublesome players, they only end up being released when they really must - Adam Johnson for example should have been let go the moment his club knew the nature of the allegations. However, they hung onto him and it's just wrong.

If he was a manager I think he would have been sacked sooner. 

[liampie]

managers always take the rap for what happens, look at phil brown when he managed hull city. same with ranieri at leicester

[AmericanPie]

Players are always protected better than managers, it's just a natural process.

You hire a player based on their ability or potential, a manager is appointed to get results. It's a simple business but its the manager who takes the blame.