So far the World has seen two big resignations from Sabri Lamouchi (Ivory Coast) and Cesare Prandelli (Italy). After both of their teams failed to qualify in groups that they were expected to progress through.
Even after such a short time in the World Cup, there has been calls for other managers to resign including Roy Hodgson whose England side left the competition during the group stages along with Italy and Vincente Del Bosque of Spain who despite being the World Cup holders also exited during the group stages.
But does this really benefit the team or does it just result in further disruptions to the national team. The modern game has changed quite a bit but historically managers that spent a long time with their national team did go on to win the World Cup. Namely Enzo Bearzot (Italy) - 11Years, Franz Beckenbauer (West Germany) - 12 Years, Alf Ramsey (England) - 11 Years. We're not saying this is always the case but most of the time there seems to be a correlation.
The main reason many believe this is, is because managers have got to know both their youth and experienced team members and have a clear philosophy of how the team works, trains and plays.
Hodgson and Del Bosque have stated that they will not resign from management. Although to add a third manager to the managers that have left during this World Cup, Safet Susic (Bosnia) has stated that he may announce his resignation over the coming days, (despite getting Bosnia to their 1st ever World Cup).
What are your views, should international managers stay on despite a bad World Cup and have a go in the next four years or is it better to forget the bad past and bring in new manager ready to attack the next tournament? Tweet us your answer @fitforfootball or send us your answer through our Google Plus.
To follow your side at the World Cup take a look at our World Cup resource centre.
