Seriously though. I have been bitching about this for years, but I still can't get it. The football job competition is exceptionally tough at the best of times, and even more so now during the pandemic. Departments have been defunded, teams have folded, positions have been cut, and organisations are downsizing. It's exceptionally insulting to see this when top players still make millions, on six figure weekly salaries. Nevertheless, myself and countless colleagues have been through many job search processes over the last year and a half, and continue to do so. It's frightening times, as we struggle to pay bills, maintain lifestyles, and for some of us, we are cut off from the ones we love. What do we do? What can we do?
How many more cover letters do we have to write? How many times do we have to fill in our work history and qualifications? Why does anyone care about my GCSEs?
Cover Letters:
To whom it may concern, I find this to be an utterly pointless process. Most football coaches are not that articulate. It means they don't do words good. We're all going to say the same things in our cover letter; we're passionate about working with kids, we believe in long term development, we go above and beyond, we can lead efficiently and work well with others, and all the rest of that generic crap. It's a waste of our time to write it, and a waste of their time to read it. At best, the employer has learned that you have an effective grasp of Google, and can read the person specifications in the job description.
It's true for a lot of jobs, but especially so in football, that a person's qualifications don't really tell you much about them. Let's look at this crude pyramid that I drew to badly illustrate my point.
Number of coaches:
Most countries work off a pyramid like this in terms of their licensing. 1 representing the entry level, and 5 representing the pro license. It should probably be wider, but I couldn't be arsed to do that. The number of pro license coaches per country are usually in the hundreds, and the number of level 1 coaches are typically in the tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, so this is not an accurate visual representation proportionally. In terms of knowledge, the pyramid is inverted.
Knowledge of coaches:
Dave and Darren are both level three coaches, yet Dave is vastly more knowledgeable, and has been ready for level four for years, but cannot get in a course. Darren barely scraped through to level three, and has not grown since passing the course. But Darren's CV looked better than Dave's, and Darren gets the job.
This is where other revenue streams coaching courses have appeared to help improve the knowledge and ability of coaches, and to help the recruiters differentiate between candidates based on standardised certification. In some ways, it has been helpful. But that really depends on the quality of the course, and the knowledge of the recruiters. The FA Youth Modules are great, and a coach to have completed those is highly likely to be a better coach in regards to working with young players than a coach who has not done those. It's not for definite, but it is highly likely. But how about qualifications from abroad? the USC Premier Diploma is highly regarded in the USA, as it is a top qualification from a top coaching organisation, but in the UK, very few have heard of it, meaning it doesn't hold the same weight that it should do. A coach to have done the USC route plus the UEFA route is likely a more knowledgeable coach than one who only did the UEFA route. Again, not certain, but it is likely, but how helpful is it when the recruiter doesn't know what it is?
The same can be said for other specialist courses too. Someone to have completed the FA Player and Match Analysis certificate (I think it was £15 back in 2010 and takes a few hours to complete) is technically a qualified analyst in the same way somebody who completed the MBP Scouting and Match Analysis course (about £400, and takes two months). The two courses are vastly different in their scope, but if the recruiter doesn't know that, how helpful is it?
Coaches are supposed to be generalists, not specialists. We have different hats, we have a tool box, we have strings to our bow, and all other wonderful analogies. We need a diverse range of experience in order to build our knowledge and ability. Much of what I view on job specs I believe the recruiter looks at as a box ticking exercise. And it should all be weighted differently. Let's say you're applying for a job in WSL 2, and they are looking for someone with "experience in the women's game." How much? To what level? To what degree of success? I mean, Steve Kean has more experience in the Premier League than Joachim Low. A coach to have had one season at county level and suffered a relegation, is not the same as a coach to have had five seasons at high levels, including regional, WPL, and within RTCs, but they do both tick that box.
Sure, a good recruiter will surely differentiate between those two when it comes to the quality of their experience, but after reading multiple CVs, who actually does? And again, there is a bias too this when it comes to candidate selection. It's the availability heuristic. A coach who got a job at a decent level through fluke or connections, may end up leaving that job due to poor performance, but on their CV, they will have "experience at X level with Y club for Z years." This instantly puts them at an advantage on paper over a better coach, who has not had that experience. It's why the Premier League has a revolving door of useless coaches who keep getting hired at different clubs.
In the above picture, the black dot represents the qualification of the coach, and the white dot represents that coach's ability. Who is the best coach? According to job applications, it's probably Jack, as he is the only level 5 coach, but when we look at ability and not license, we see that both Dave and Harry are slightly more competent than Jack. Of course, these are all white men, with Anglo-Saxon names. We'd be adding way more levels to this if we mixed the names up a bit. And we can see with the comparison between Dick and Darren, that Dick is likely a more competent coach than Darren, but there are no level 3 courses in Dick's part of the country. This means Dick is denied the opportunities and the wage that Darren gets. Another cruel irony being that because Dick is level 2, he can't get the level 3 jobs, but without a level 3 job, he can't get on the level 3 course. It's not just Dick who is missing out though, as the club that hires Darren instead of Dick will be giving a job to an inferior coach, who just happens to have a better certificate.
The yellow box represents everything that could possibly be known about football. The purple represents everything you need to know in order to be able to effectively do this job. The other colours represent four candidates that have applied.
Grey knows the most about football, but the overlap with the job specifications are quite small. The same with Green. Green is a very competent coach, but with little relevant skill and experience for this job. Red has the most overlap, and ticks the most boxes, but has a vastly inferior coaching knowledge compared to Grey and Green. Blue has very little coaching knowledge, but looks more suitable for the role than either Green or Grey. What else do we need to ask? What else is relevant?
Personally, the first one is values. Our values have to align. People have different views on all factors, from playing style, methodology, discipline etc. We can debate who is right or wrong all day, and I happily do, but when it comes to jobs, we have to make sure that our values, our morals, our ideas match those of who we are working with or for. I have quite jobs in a matter of days when I found out our values didn't align. Nothing against them, just that we would have had to endure weeks and months of pain, before finally realising it wasn't a good fit. They say that successful relationships come down to hating the same stuff. It would help though, especially when visas are involved, that we know this well in advance. Not all recruiters are up front with their values, and not many people are able to discuss them.
What next? I would look at commitment and ability/ambition to learn and improve. Can we rate commitment? Those former employers I left after days would say I have low commitment. My wife, after four years of long distance, would say I have high commitment. Let's just say I'm committed to a cause I believe in. What about wanting to grow as a coach? How do we measure that? I have certificates coming out my arse, but part of my privilege was that I was able to go and attain them. I started coaching as a teenager, meaning I had low commitment, and high free time available to go off and study. For coaches who start in their thirties and forties, they will have commitments such as jobs and family, that I didn't have, which will prevent them from getting those certificates. Does that mean I am better than them? Absolutely not.
The way I would measure it, and it's never an exact science, is how much they can talk about coaching and football. Some coaches can rattle on all day about it, and I typically find that they are the best coaches, because they clearly have a hunger and a passion. It interests them. It intrigues them. Are they listening to podcasts? Reading books? Doing study visits? Having coaching discussions? Watching presentations? The amount of informal methods of coaching have grown exponentially with technology. If we were to include the aforementioned methods as real coach education, then myself and many of my friends on Twitter, we're getting in ten to twenty hours in per week. To further hammer the point home, the worst coaches I have worked with did absolutely nothing between sessions. No podcasts, no books, no looking up sessions. Nothing. But we all had the same licenses.
What if there were a subjective way to decipher all this? Like on Football Manager?
Football Manager, as broad as it is, at least works within a defined context. Real life often lacks that context. How good am I at teaching goalkeeper distribution? With U12s, I'm great, but with adults, I'm limited. How about working within different cultures? How is your adaptability to new situations? there's a lot to consider and a lot we can't see.
The traditional interview method: apply, CV, cover letter, interview - does not work in football. That method is mainly to determine one's academic ability, and their task compliance. Are they presentable? Can they speak in full sentences? Do they have a firm handshake? By those metrics, there are plenty of highly successful coaches that would fail. Is Jurgen Klopp presentable to everybody's standards? Can Bielsa speak in full sentences? Does it matter? What matters is what they do on the pitch. And how do we determine that?
It used to be that some clubs and organisations would give you a practical interview. But that still came after an interview, or some form of applicant culling. Other barriers would be in place too. For my practical interview with Arsenal to work in Kuwait, they happened to be in London at a tournament. It was the afternoon on a week day. How many better candidates than me were living up North and unable to get off work? I was fortunate enough to be out of a job and completely open. We're limited by so many constraints. Are employers looking for the best possible candidate, or are they looking for any suitable candidate? There's tons of level two coaches with three years of experience, and perhaps all we have to do is determine that they are not tossers? If those boxes are ticked, good. It doesn't matter which one we get.
Do you want the best possible candidate? Surely you want to know how they operate in an environment that is similar to yours? Turning up in London to coach twenty minutes with a bunch of kids who hardly spoke English, who were already tired, who had no relationship with me, and who probably viewed my session as an inconvenience, how much can you really tell about me? It's a false environment, because the demands and the pressures are different to how they would be while on the job. Instead of trying to improve the ability of the players to create space, my main focus is impressing my prospective boss. Due to nerves, are they seeing the real me? I don't get nervous, but that's besides the point. In those twenty minutes, all they would have seen is;
1. My session design is okay.
2. I know the correct technical points relevant to the topic.
3. I know when to step in and make a point.
4. I'm not a complete twat.
And that was enough to get me a job in Kuwait. As you go abroad, in some environments you learn that your bare minimum is way above the standard the kids are used to in their own country. It's sad, but it's another issue.
How about if we could show real videos, of real coaching, with our real players?
That little "see more" button really helps. On a CV, sometimes I feel like I can't fit everything in, and have to give one generic line to summarise years worth of work. LinkedIn is a virtual CV that comes with dropdown boxes for recruiters to look at, if they so choose to. If I'm applying for a job in decent level men's football, is it relevant for the prospective employer to know about the year I spent with the U5s? On LinkedIn, they can scroll right past that, and if I have provided it, they can look more in depth at the relevant samples of my work.
Here's the headlines. Who I am, where I am, what I look like, and what my qualifications are. Intrigued? Let's head to the about section.
Just realised I need to update the about me section. This part expands upon the headlines, and provides a brief summary. Below that is some of my featured work. There are presentations, curricula, session videos, samples of analysis, and some of my academic papers. If any of these are of interest, they can be viewed and downloaded. If analysis is part of the job I am being considered for, it would be worthwhile seeing what I can do and how it is presented. If I will be required to design curricula, why not have a look at what I've made before? Below that is work experience, education, and qualifications. Self-explanatory and straight forward. Like I said, if a job is not relevant, skip past it. If a job is relevant, dive in for a closer look.
And then come recommendations. Not sure about you, but I have a handful of mates, who I have a reciprocal relationship with, where we act as each other's references. Why would I provide a contact of someone who doesn't think I am competent? As time goes by, we lose contact. I could not provide a contact detail for over 90% of my former employers. However, if they were on LinkedIn, they would be easy to find and to link to the jobs on my profile. The recommendations section on LinkedIn should be taken more seriously, as should the skills section.
Something else that I hope happens is that we move interviews to Zoom. Most of us can find an hour free. But an hour of travel, fifteen minutes of mandatory waiting to impress the organisation, and now it becomes harder. I would also like to normalise interviewing in tracksuits. If I am going to be coaching on the pitch and wearing a tracksuit all the time, what does the recruiter learn about me by wearing and sitting uncomfortably in a suit? In the past, we would have to take a day or a half day off work, in order to interview for another job. That puts the power firmly in the court of the employers, not the workers. I'm not advocating for the ball to be in either court, merely for a process that allows for more candidates to be looked at, and for organisations to hire the right candidate.
Take LinkedIn seriously. Put jobs on there, insist profiles are kept up to date, and have us apply through that medium. I really don't think it's a lot, and I am sure that it will make life so much easier for all parties involved.
The above is for a job teaching PE in Brunei. I keep saying this. I am not motivated by money. The same goes for the vast majority of colleagues I have had. But if we're going to apply for a job, we need to know how much we are going to earn. It's kind of important. Will we be able to afford food? Can we build up savings? Will we be able to support dependents? It's a dick move.
Internet confirms. Dick move. It gives them all the power. It gives them all the cards. I have read a few justifications, and all of them are dick moves that take the power away from the workers and to the employers. It helps them to keep us stupid. It's really not unreasonable to want to know how much I will be compensated for my time and expertise.
I think we can all do better, and that we all deserve better. Let's make it so.
No comments:
Post a Comment