Statistical Analysis: No bald man has ever won the Premier League

Recently I did an investigation into nationalities of managers to win the Premier League, when looking at this insistence upon some to have English or British managers. Well actually, you're better off looking for a foreign manager with hair. Seems ludicrous, but it's true.

So remember; none of them are English, only one of them had played in the Premier League before (five games on loan), and only one of them had managed in the Premier League before (a decade earlier). And none of them are bald. There is some thinning on display, but that doesn't mean bald. If you want to win the league, first make sure you are one of the following clubs; Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, as Blackburn and Leicester were one-off flukes. Then, when picking a manager, he absolutely must not be English. He cannot have played in the Premier League, and he should never have managed in the Premier League. And he absolutely must have hair.

Seems ridiculous, right? Having hair doesn't make you a good manager. It would be ludicrous for someone to insist their manager was not bald. Yet no one reacts when; Jamie Redknapp, Mark Lawrenson, Alan Hansen, Alan Shearer, Paul Merson, Phil Thompson, Craig Burley, Chris Waddle, Alan Green, all those TalkSport presenters, and every other media doughnut spouts the utter rubbish they do about football managers. "He has to be English!" No he doesn't. "He has to have played the game!" No he doesn't. "He has to have managed in England before!" No he doesn't. He doesn't even need to speak English. Try disagreeing with that, and you'll be shot down by venomous vitriol without any kind of backing or evidence. They're angry, and they don't even know what they're angry at half the time. Try telling them you want your team's manager to have hair and they will probably explode. Literally pop like a balloon. And yet there's more evidence to suggest hair is important than; Englishness, playing experience, knowledge of the league. Evidence has never really been necessary when we want to be angry through.

Just how far back does this conspiracy go? Going beyond the Premier League era we can see that:
Howard Wilkinson had hair at Leeds.
George Graham had hair at Arsenal.
Howard Kendall had hair at Everton.
Joe Fagan had hair at Liverpool.
Bob Paisley had hair at Liverpool.

That takes us all the way back to the 1980/1981 season, when Ron Saunders was in charge of Aston Villa as they won the old English First Division. Some of the other managers were thinning, but they did not have the done on display like Saunders did. With this year likely to be won by Antonio Conte or Mauricio Pochettino, that would mark thirty six consecutive titles since a bald man managed a side to win the top prize in English football.





What's the catch? What's really going on here? We know that baldness does not mean you are any less able to complete a task than having hair. Hair is never a requirement on a job description. Yet it seems to matter. This article from UK Business insider claims that baldness in men signals dominance. Just how true is that? Football is the most manliest of sports, played by manly men, in front of audiences of men making manly men grunting sounds. And to be a manager of manly men playing a manly sport competing in front of manly men making manly men noises, you have to be a pretty manly man yourself. Apparently shaving your head makes you look more manly and dominant, like Bruce Willis. In 2010 GQ did a Bald 100, showing the 100 most powerful bald men in America. This is a list that did not include Lex Luthor, Professor Xavier, and Darth Vader.

In this USA Today article, CEOs say that it's better to be bald than to be short. It seems like a silly double standard, in that one should not be judged for something they can't control, but that these things you can't control have a value. I suppose that's why we all have these beauty standards that people are supposed to adhere to, like at these Miss World and other ridiculous competitions, where all the competitors, despite being of different ethnicities, actually look the same. Round eyes, slanty eyes, dark skin, light skin, big nose, small does, none of that really matters. There's this idea of what they are supposed to look like, and then there are slight variations of it, depending on the ethnicity.

Are these eighteen different competitors, or is it just a couple of women with different haircuts?

This is what has happened. Without makeup, they look like different women. With makeup, they all look the same.

Six similar looking American women.

Four blonde contestants that have had plastic surgery.

Out of these Latinas, only Paraguay looks distinct from the others.

The women we marry look nothing like this. The daughters we raise look nothing like this. The women we encounter on the street look nothing like this. Just where exactly are they? It's only a small few, that match these preconceived notions of beauty, that are ever put forward. But they do not have a monopoly on beauty. Similarly, the managers to have won the Premier League look nothing how the pundits would have you believe they have to be. They are not English, to have played in England, and to have had much managerial experience in England. And like these pageants, it's the pundits that judge and spread the narrative. It's people with these ideas in their heads trying to tell us what is acceptable and what is not.

Beauty pageants are archaic and abhorrent. The outward "beauty" that conforms to a checklist tells us nothing about the worth or real beauty of a person. Likewise, adhering to the pundit's standard of Premier League managers tells us nothing about how successful they are likely to be. The difference in football is that there is a competition for points. These points are not set by adjudicators, but by your skill. What you actually achieve. How many goals you score. If it were down to TalkSport, Harry Redknapp would be the most successful manager in football history. In the real world, he's not won enough to be considered as such. The idea is laughable.

The Guardian has also demonstrated that there are successful bald CEOs, though I believe one or two of them may be thumbs with faces drawn on. Again, The Guardian notes that bald men are seen as more powerful and dominant. It seems that if you shave your hair you are seen as tough, if you have long hair you are seen as a little untrustworthy, and if you have thinning hair, you are just a wet lettuce, so you better shave it off anyway.

But I think this is slightly at odds with reality. CEOs these days are becoming more self-made, and are not so much being born into success. Therefore, they are earning it, and their appearance doesn't actually matter. Business are judged on clear lines of success and failure, and the numbers won't lie. If you're doing a bad job, you're out of a job, hair or not.

In politics, where it doesn't matter what you actually do, only how you come across, hair still reigns supreme. Steve Bannon, the most powerful man in the world, and his puppet Donald Trump, both have excellent hair. They are both awful, awful men, but that does not matter. They have hair and they make people (enough voters) feel like they are capable. Who is the last bald US President that you can remember?

With the US Presidents, it goes all the way up to Obama. I have included a picture of Bannon Trump. For us Brits, the picture finishes with Tony Blair. Since then, we have had Gordon Brown, Call Me Dave, and Theresa May. Unlike the Americans, we've had two women. And like with the football managers, it appears, certainly in recent decades, that hair actually matters to people.

According to the Belgravia Centre, 40% of men have noticeable hair loss by age thirty-five. By the time of their first league title, I'd say that only Ranieri had noticeable hair loss. The others were just grey. From the eight managers to have won the league, Ranieri makes up 12.5%. From the twenty-four seasons, Ranieri's one championship makes up 4.166% of Premier League titles. These men were all over forty, and often in their fifties and sixties when they were winning the Premier League titles. By age sixty, it should be 65% of men with noticeable hair loss. Football managers and politicians seem to be above the curve on this one.

The WORST manager Rovers have ever had.

Why is it that these successful managers are not bald? Guardiola is shaven, not bald. Apparently there's a huge difference. If he were to grow his hair, he would be definitely labelled bald, but as he made the decision and took it into his own hands, people don't look down on him for it

There are some incredibly telling statistics from the Belgravia Centre that I will now share with you. They teach us about people's perceptions, and how this shapes their actions.

• Men are more likely to look into hair restoration surgery than women (20% v 12%).
• There was a 12% increase in hair restoration procedures from 2006-2008 worldwide.
• More women are seeking methods of non-surgical hair restoration, which is up by 31.8% from 2004-2008.
• Women are much more likely to see their doctor about thinning hair first than men (53% v 26%).
• Almost half (47%) of hair loss sufferers would spend their life savings to regain a full head of hair.
• Roughly a third (30%) of hair loss sufferers would give up sex if it meant they got their hair back.
• About three-quarters (77%) of adults would be concerned if they were in their twenties and just starting out in their career and experiencing hair loss.
• Hair loss is the issue women feel would make them least attractive to men.
• Nearly nine in ten (86%) of women would be concerned if their were in their thirties and started to lose their hair.
• About three-quarters (76%) of women would be worried if they were recently divorced and had noticeable hair loss and started dating again, compared to 50% of men.
• More than half (55%) of hair loss sufferers would be more inclined to consider having a hair transplant if celebrities or public figures were more open about hair restoration surgery, but men are more likely to be influenced than women (57% v 45%).

Some of these are quite strange. Humans have one basic need, which is survival. That is broken down into food and sex. We eat to stay alive, and reproduce to keep our species going. Overriding that is our sense of belonging. We are social beings that work in herds and tribes. The fact that 30% said they would give up sex if it meant they got their hair back tells you where these people are in their heads. Sex is supposed to be the motivating factor in what drives people, and yet 30% would rather have hair than sex. Many of you are probably thinking "What's the point in hair without sex?" Exactly. It's about the perception of it. As a bald man, people might think you are not getting sex. As a man with hair, people would assume that you are. It's these perceptions from other people that are supposedly more important to us than the reality.

One only has to glance on Instagram to see how this works.

The above video is how Instagram works, and why I stay well away from it. She doesn't care about the special moment between her and her boyfriend, she wants the likes and the comments. She wants her friends to feign jealousy, tell her how special she is, and make out like these so very lucky. Yes, I'm aware the video is a parody. Yet how often have you walked past a moron in the way, who is taking a duck face selfie?

Gyms these days are full of selfie takers. That tells you that they are not working for them. And the woman in that selfie stick picture looks absolutely ridiculous. We walk past people doing that at tourists sites all over the world. The hold that pose for about ten seconds while taking the perfect picture. No one ever makes that face naturally, which is the first cause for concern. They are either completely oblivious, or really don't care, about the disparaging looks they get from passers-by. When we squeeze past them and look at them like they are the world's biggest idiot, it doesn't matter, because it's not us that they are trying to impress. It's their followers they care about. The followers will like it, comment on it, and tell them how wonderful they are, yet ironically will know how stupid they would have looked taking such a photo, because they do it themselves, yet they all collude in the lie, where nobody ever speaks about it, and they all perpetuate the validation of each other with their likes and comments. Pathetic.

While I'm on a roll, here are some more photos that should be shown to the narcissistic youth of today.

Looking at this picture here, my own feed is full of them. So you've gone to Rome? That's incredibly interesting. I've never been and would love to go. I'd really like to look through your photos and see some of the things that you saw, but unfortunately there's a problem. You're in the way. Would you accept watching a movie like this? Of course not. This woman is probably around 50% of the photo. The Coliseum in the background is out of focus. That's what I want to see. Instead, I'm looking at arms and a face, with a background of patchy grass. And what about the face? Forced, smug smile. With the sunglasses, it creates a sense of superiority, and as most facial flaws are around the eyes, such big glasses obscure us from seeing them. And there's a one-way interaction with sunglasses, in that I can see you, but you can't see me. The camera, as ever, is held from above, so we can't see double-chins, have our focus towards the breasts, and can't see bellies. She could be really fat for all we know. The point of the picture is not that she wants us to see the Coliseum, but for us to know she was at the Coliseum, and that she's having a better time than we are. But look around the picture, and what can we ascertain? The weather doesn't look brilliant, there appears to be a bit of construction going on, and most importantly, she appears to be alone. The eyes hold the key to true emotions, and we can't see them right now.

Selfies are a form of ego masturbation. It appears this author did the same Google search for photos that I did.

Yes, I've gone off on one, like I do a lot. One more thing before I become full circle. Did you know that becoming self-obsessed and vain can actually be quite lucrative for the young, entrepreneurial attractive woman? Of course you did, as you must have heard of those wretched Kardashians. Many of you were probably unaware, and this is quite important, that there are many young women making a living off of posting selfies and gifs on Twitter and Instagram. Amazing. This isn't like the BabeStation girls that roll around naked late night on Sky, charging for telephone calls. These are women that literally take photos and short videos of themselves, post them to social media, and yet make money from it. And here's how;

• You have to be attractive. At least an 8/10, but also quite athletic. Like a fitness model with makeup. Plenty of squats, as the bum is usually a selling point, with the cleavage.
• Post plenty of photos of things like rolling around in bed, post-shower, and at various stages of workouts (but obviously not sweating, because that is disgusting). The workouts are usually squats or lunges to accentuate the bum, or hip thrusts, because it looks like dry humping.
• Begin to post short videos, between ten and thirty seconds, performing a few reps of these exercises.
• Perpetuate the videos and photos, making it look like you are living an interesting, and holistic life. Occasionally make reference to friends, vaguely, through group photos, and "great night" statuses.
• The fitness videos will eventually be picked up by fitness accounts, that will share your video with their followers. Make sure you are wearing bright coloured, spotless, brand name trainers, that you have the tightest of yoga pants, that make your bum look incredibly hungry, and wear a sports bra, but not too restricting. People have seen hip thrusts, squats, and lunges since the dawn of time, but they don't often see a video of a large breasted, big bummed, fitness model doing them. Get that right, and it could lead to an influx of male followers. Many of whom will have a shirtless gym mirror selfie as their display picture.
• As the number of followers increase, interact with one of two of them through soundbites. Nothing too deep that gives anything away.
• Start to write statuses thanking your "fans." They're not followers anymore, they are fans. I don't have 700 Facebook friends, I have 700 fans on Facebook. Do the occasional shot that would be taken from the point of view of your chin, if it were looking down, so that your fans can see down through your cleavage, across your flat stomach, and see a little of the shadow under your yoga pants. Do this horizontal on your bed for the best effect.
• Due to your large number of "fans" and other such accounts that like and share your content, some advertisers will begin to get in touch. They will begin paying you for promoting their products. You only drink this type of herbal tea, as it helps you detox. You take these supplements, which help you get such womanly abs. You wear these gym gloves, use this shampoo, have these yoga pants etc. You'll get free samples, of course.
• If all is going well, and you are teasing your fans enough with the post workout shower selfies (people don't appreciate how important it is for our athletes and role models to promote not only good hygiene, but also effective recovery techniques following exercise) you will then be able to take your most audacious step. You have income from the ad revenue, and you're getting free samples, but that's not enough. You need to setup a wishlist on Amazon, and post revealing selfies, suggesting that your fans, if they want to show their appreciation, buy you gifts from your wishlist. 

I wish I was making this up. I'm not. This stuff, as ridiculous as it is, actually happens. There are plenty of vain, attractive women out there that are willing to do it, but there are legions of sad, desperate, pathetic men that will buy these women gifts. It's supply and demand. They wouldn't be taking the pictures if there weren't enough idiots to financially reward them.

What's this got to do with football managers not being bald? Let me refer you back to the Belgravia statistics. So much of it comes from a lack of confidence. Premier League managers are broadcast all around the world, all night and day. They have to regularly face up to thousands of fans. Every day they have to contend with the egos of fit, talented, ambitious young men. Could you do that if you were shy, self-conscious, or lacking in confidence? And what if you were one of those that would trade sex for hair? Maybe that's why they are so successful. These managers have kept their hair, yet have taken a vow of celibacy.

When looking to command a group of people, you need to be confident, and you need to look the part. A simple Google search shows countless conflicting articles that claim bald men to be more or less attractive than men with hair. The fact most men would choose to keep their hair, and go to extreme lengths, such as spending their life savings and abstaining from sex, shows it must be important to them. The celebrities used for comparison are Vin Diesel and The Rock with Gerard Butler and Brad Pitt. I'm not sure many would say that Vin Diesel and The Rock look attractive in the same way that GB and BP do. The people that are attracted to the bald guys are attracted to other parts of them, like their physique, and dominant personality. Ergo, they are viewed as more masculine, but that's not entirely due to their baldness. Why is Jason Statham seen as more masculine than say Norris Cole from Coronation Street? Personality, facial expressions, build, accent, posture etc.

Baldness does not mean you are bad at your job, but for some reason, people don't want to be bald. If it's just a natural part of life, why do so many fight it? One could throw the same shade at wrinkle cream, eyeliner, high heels, blusher, foundation etc. Because shaven is attractive and bald isn't, some men are now paying for tattoos on their skulls that give the impression of a shaven head. much like if you were to dot biro marks all over your head. Being bald doesn't actually make a difference, but it feels like it does, so therefore it does. Which is incredibly strange.

We're long overdue a bald manager winning the Premier League. Bald men are massively under represented in football. Just look at the amount of bald men in the crowd, compared to bald managers. There's a lot of bald assistants and head coaches, but very few of the current Premier League managers are bald, and the next in line to win it have full heads of hair; Conte, Pochettino, Klopp. And remember folks; when selecting a manager for your Premier League team, once you've made sure you're at one of the top clubs, make sure he's not English, has not played in the Premier League, has not managed in the Premier League, and that he has hair.

Certainly don't let it be a woman.

And definitely not Brendan Rodgers.