Few football superstitions are as persistent as the EFL Manager of the Month curse. Win the award, enjoy the applause — then brace yourself for a downturn in results. It’s a familiar narrative, often dismissed as fan folklore or explained away as a coincidence. But does the curse actually exist? Or are we simply seeing […]
Few football superstitions are as persistent as the EFL Manager of the Month curse.
Win the award, enjoy the applause — then brace yourself for a downturn in results. It’s a familiar narrative, often dismissed as fan folklore or explained away as a coincidence.
But does the curse actually exist? Or are we simply seeing patterns where we want to see them?
By analysing Championship Manager of the Month winners across the past two seasons, using publicly available match data from FBRef, it’s possible to move beyond superstition and look at whether performance genuinely dips after the award is handed out.
The results are… interesting.
To keep comparisons consistent, the analysis focused on:
The goal wasn’t to “prove” a curse exists in isolation, but to see whether a measurable trend appears once the noise is stripped away.
Across the dataset, there is a noticeable decline of around one point per game after managers receive the award.
That’s not a marginal shift. Over the course of a month, or even five or six matches, a one-point swing can be the difference between:
Crucially, this drop-off appears consistently enough to suggest something more than random variance. While not every manager experiences a downturn, the overall pattern points towards a short-term regression following recognition.
The numbers alone don’t explain why performance dips — but they do invite some logical explanations.
Manager of the Month awards often follow strong runs against favourable opposition. The next block of fixtures can naturally be tougher, particularly as teams rise up the table and attract more attention.
Success breeds scrutiny. Opponents are more likely to analyse, adapt, and prepare specifically for a side that’s been publicly praised — especially in a league as tactically reactive as the Championship.
With recognition comes expectation. Media attention increases, players are talked up, and suddenly maintaining standards becomes harder than chasing them.
None of this requires a supernatural curse — just the realities of competitive football.
One of the most interesting aspects of the data is that the ‘curse’ isn’t universal.
A standout exception is Kieran McKenna at Ipswich Town, the Championship’s December Manager of the Month this season.
McKenna is one of a small group of managers within the wider dataset who have consistently maintained — or even improved — performance levels after receiving the award.
That matters.
Ipswich’s ability to buck the trend appears rooted in structural stability rather than short-term form. Under McKenna, the side benefits from:
In this context, the award doesn’t disrupt momentum — it simply reflects it.
McKenna’s case doesn’t disprove the broader trend, but it does suggest the “curse” acts more like a stress test.
Clubs with fragile depth, over-reliance on form players, or unclear tactical principles are more likely to dip once the spotlight intensifies.
So, is the Manager of the Month curse real?
Statistically, the answer leans towards yes — with context.
The data shows a consistent post-award decline in points per game across the Championship over multiple seasons. That alone gives the theory more substance than superstition.
However, examples like McKenna at Ipswich Town highlight that the downturn is not inevitable.
Rather than a curse, it may be a reflection of how well-equipped a club is to handle success.
With McKenna’s December award still fresh, the coming weeks offer a live reference point. As more fixtures are played, it will become clearer whether Ipswich continue to resist the trend — or whether the pressures that follow recognition eventually bite.
Either way, the numbers suggest this long-standing football cliché deserves to be taken a little more seriously.
Not as magic.
But not as myth, either.
