There is already a torrent of criticism being directed at Chelsea Football Club in numerous articles and the comment sections below them following Sunday afternoon's decision to sack manager Carlos Ancelotti.
At first glance the move does seem preposterous. Getting fired in a hallway one hour after the final kick of the season doesn't seem fitting for a man who won the "Double" in his first season in England, and only missed top spot again by a handful of points in his second.
But then you have to ask yourself what role the manager plays at Chelsea, or at any football club for that matter?
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
There's not much point feeling sorry for Ancelotti. He's being very well compensated for his departure and his reputation amongst Chelsea supporters (full disclosure: I am one) and across the wider football world is unlikely to suffer. His record spoke for itself when he arrived at Chelsea and it speaks just as loudly as he leaves.
He rarely criticized referees or opponents and generally took responsibility for poor performances when he had excuses not to. He was a classy individual that burnished Chelsea's image and for those reasons alone supporters will be sad to see him go.
His departure is probably the most questionable of all Abramovich's managerial sackings for the simple reason that there are few credible alternatives this time. That is why it's a bad move, not because Ancelotti is Chelsea's sixth manager in the past eight seasons.
There is a lot of talk about Chelsea's desperate need for "continuity," that it's madness to keep hiring and firing managers and that Abramovich has no class. Excellent knee-jerk reactions, but the club's recent record doesn't really bear that kind of talk out.
In the eight seasons Abramovich has owned Chelsea the club has won three Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two League Cups, reached the semi-finals of the Champions League six times and in 2008 came within a once-in-a-million slip in the Moscow mud of winning the biggest prize in club football. That's an astoundingly successful record which any club in England with the exception of Manchester United would trade for in an instant.
Man United has achieved its record-breaking feats with Alex Ferguson, but he started out at the club at a different time in football. It was almost a different world. Sticking with Sir Alex through some initially thin years paid off beyond the wildest expectations, but that doesn't mean it's a formula for all situations.
At Chelsea the gaffer appears to be nothing more than an expendable layer of middle management, a front-line supervisor who is easier to get rid of than the rank-and-file out on the pitch. Canning the manager every two years may be a horrible and degenerate way to run a football club, but Chelsea wins quite often. Could it be that Abramovich has created an organizational structure that doesn't require the same manager in charge for 10 seasons to be successful?
At clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal it's all about the manager and the power he exercises (although what exactly will happen to United and Arsenal once those two leave is an open and interesting question), while at clubs like AC Milan and Chelsea it's all about the owner. Two different ways of doing things, and neither is particularly suited for the truly long-term.
Clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona probably do it best. (Because of course, neither one has enough going for it already.) The community/supporter ownership structures and the dominant position each club holds in the sporting culture of Spain are huge advantages of course, but at both clubs it is all about the institution itself. Managers and presidents come and go, but success seems if not constant, always right around the corner. More than just a club indeed.