The “Final Say” for beleaguered football managers?

22-Jul-2011 The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently handed down its decision in McBridge v Falkirk Football Club, a case that approves the decision of the Premier League arbitration panel in Keegan v Newcastle United.

In the Keegan case, Kevin Keegan resigned and claimed constructive dismissal and breach of contract after Newcastle United bought a player whom he did not want. The arbitration panel held that in circumstances where a manager has been given the final say in relation to players and a player was bought over his head, then the manager’s position would be undermined. In this instance a Uruguayan international player, Gonzalez, was signed despite Keegan’s opposition.

In McBridge v Falkirk Football Club a similar situation arose. Mr McBridge was the Club’s under 19 team manager. He resigned after he was told, with no prior discussion or consultation, that he would no longer be responsible for picking the team and that responsibility would now be performed by the Academy Director. He claimed unfair constructive dismissal in the Employment Tribunal where his claim was dismissed on the basis that there was an “autocratic style of management” in the football world and that these actions therefore did not constitute a breach of Mr McBridge’s contract.

The EAT disagreed and noted that the change in his role was a matter of substance and that if he had not resigned then he would have had to accept the Club’s decision regarding responsibility of team selection. As a result we would also have lost autonomy in relation to other tactical areas namely: set pieces, team talks and team formation. The EAT held that the “autocratic style of management” did not assist the Club nor did it provide a defence. The Club could not treat Mr McBridge in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence and he had been justified in resigning.

This case clearly illustrates the types of circumstances that will likely constitute breaches of football managers’ contracts. Their ability to have the “final say” in relation to picking a team and new signings is a fundamental part of their role and one that Clubs would be ill-advised to attempt to fetter or override.

The wider implications for employers are that trying to justify high-handed, unreasonable or autocratic behaviour based on arguments about how badly an industry or sector customarily treats its employees, is likely to be given short shrift by Tribunals.

For more information regarding any employment issues contact Sally Bird

---