Bri One Three.

In 2024, eight head coaches were hired during the NFL offseason to teams that had posted losing records and failed to reach the playoffs during the 2023–2024 season. Of those eight hires, three were Black, the highest number of Black head coaches hired in a single cycle in league history, doubling the amount from the previous season. By the end of the 2024–2025 season, only three of those teams had winning records, and just one reached the playoffs. Despite modest improvement across the group, two of the three Black head coaches hired that offseason were dismissed. By January 2026, the final Black coach from that hiring cycle had also been released after just two seasons.

The most recent dismissal reduced the number of Black head coaches in the NFL from five to four, dropping representation by 3.1 percentage points, from 15.6% at the start of the 2025 season to 12.5% entering the offseason. What was once framed as progress vanished in less than two years.

Every NFL offseason brings the same rituals: coaching interviews, press conferences, and optimism packaged as “culture,” followed quietly by the rehiring of familiar names. Beneath that process lies a pattern the league has yet to confront honestly. Black coaches remain underrepresented in head coaching roles, and even when they break through, they are often evaluated on a shorter timeline, expected to win faster, rebuild with less margin for error, and survive organizational instability that would buy others more time.

REPRESENTATION WITHOUT RETENTION

As of 2026, eleven NFL franchises have never hired a Black head coach in a full-time capacity. Since the implementation of the Rooney Rule in 2003, those teams alone have hired a combined 48 head coaches, with some franchises cycling through as many as six different leaders during that period and others hiring only one. The volume of turnover underscores that opportunities have existed, but they have not been extended equitably.

That imbalance becomes clearer in more recent hiring data. Since 2020, the NFL has hired 30 white head coaches, compared to just eight Black head coaches during the same period. Of those white hires, four were dismissed after a single season, representing roughly 13.3%. Among Black hires, four head coaches were also released after one season, but because the pool was smaller, those dismissals accounted for 50% of all Black head coaching hires in that span. When the scope is expanded to the past decade, beginning in 2016, thirteen years after the Rooney Rule took effect, the disparity persists. During that period, 52 white head coaches have been hired, compared to 13 Black head coaches. Six of the white coaches were dismissed after one season, or 11.5%, while five Black head coaches met the same fate, representing 38.5%.

Taken together, the data reveals a consistent pattern. Black head coaches are far more likely to be dismissed after one season, even when inheriting teams with multiple losing records prior to their arrival and, in some cases, delivering marginal improvement under difficult circumstances. Meanwhile, white head coaches with comparable results are more often afforded additional seasons to stabilize rosters, develop quarterbacks, and demonstrate long-term vision.

THE LIMITS OF THE ROONEY RULE

The NFL often points to the Rooney Rule as evidence of progress, but the data suggests its impact has been limited. While the rule has increased the number of interviews granted to underrepresented candidates since its adoption in 2003, hiring outcomes have lagged behind. Too often, compliance appears procedural rather than substantive, with interviews conducted to satisfy league requirements rather than to expand genuine opportunity. For some candidates, this dynamic can feel performative, reinforcing the perception that access is offered without real intent to confer authority.

More importantly, even when hiring gains are made, they prove fragile. Representation takes multiple seasons to build but can be erased in a single offseason when Black head coaches are dismissed at higher rates than they are hired. Firings undo progress faster than new opportunities can replace it, ensuring that overall numbers remain stagnant or regress.

A SHORTER LEASH

That shorter evaluation window becomes most visible when tenure length and opportunity over time are examined side by side. Among the 52 white head coaches hired since 2016, 19 remain active, and only one is currently coaching for a team other than the one that originally hired him. The average tenure of these active coaches is approximately four seasons, with three having reached nine seasons dating back to 2017. By contrast, of the 13 Black head coaches hired during that same span, only three remain active. Their average tenure is just 2.6 seasons, and the longest among them is four seasons, a mark reached by only one coach since 2022.

The disparity grows sharper when cumulative opportunity is considered. Based on the coaching tenure data compiled from Pro-Football-Reference, white head coaches hired since 2016 have collectively logged 171 seasons in those roles, including 81 seasons since 2020 alone. Among the 18 white head coaches from that group who are still active, their combined tenure accounts for 73 seasons of continued opportunity. Black head coaches hired during the same period, by comparison, have accumulated just 26 total seasons, with only 14 since 2020. The three Black head coaches still active from that cohort have logged a combined eight seasons. These figures demonstrate how patience compounds for some coaches while remaining fleeting for others, shaping careers long before performance can be fully evaluated.

The imbalance also exists among coaches no longer active. Since 2016, 34 white head coaches and ten Black head coaches have been dismissed from their roles. White coaches in this group averaged nearly four seasons before being fired, while Black coaches averaged less than half that time. The difference extends beyond tenure length to opportunity after dismissal. Four white head coaches were rehired as head coaches in the season immediately following their release. None of the Black head coaches were afforded the same opportunity, reinforcing a pattern in which white coaches are more likely to be viewed as assets worth reinvesting in, even after failure.

Context further complicates claims that performance alone drives these decisions. There are currently white head coaches in the NFL who have coached for more than four seasons while maintaining records below .500, evidence that losing alone does not automatically trigger dismissal. Black head coaches, meanwhile, are more frequently fired after one or two seasons, often while managing rebuilding rosters, rookie quarterbacks, front office turnover, or inherited instability. Disproportionate outcomes do not require a conspiracy. They emerge from a system in which “potential” and patience are granted more freely to some coaches more than to others.

WHEN PATIENCE IS UNEVEN

Within franchises that have cycled through head coaches rapidly, patterns of uneven patience become clear. In Detroit, Jim Caldwell was dismissed after four seasons despite producing winning records and two playoff appearances, with leadership citing the need for a higher ceiling. His successor, Matt Patricia, was retained through multiple losing seasons amid quarterback instability and organizational regression, repeatedly framed as a long-term culture builder in need of time.

Similarly, in Atlanta, Raheem Morris was dismissed after two full seasons as head coach, despite inheriting a rebuilding roster and overseeing incremental improvement within a shifting organizational structure. His tenure was brief and framed as insufficient progress. By contrast, the Falcons retained Arthur Smith through three consecutive losing seasons, repeatedly emphasizing long-term vision, culture installation, and the need for continuity amongst player uncertainty. Comparable results were interpreted differently, with one coach afforded time to “see it through” and another evaluated as expendable before his system could fully take hold.

Across franchises, these contrasts reveal a consistent dynamic: instability alone does not determine dismissal. Instead, patience operates as a resource unevenly distributed, shaping which coaches are granted time and which are quickly replaced.

THE “QB WHISPERER” FILTER

The league’s growing fixation on so-called “QB whisperers” further narrows who is viewed as worthy of patience. In recent hiring cycles, head coaching searches have increasingly prioritized offensive play-callers, quarterback developers, and system continuity over broader leadership profiles.

As the hiring data from recent cycles shows, success is framed less around organizational stewardship and more around proximity to quarterback performance, particularly with young or struggling passers. As a result, when teams limit their searches to candidates with direct quarterback development resumes, the pool of “qualified” options shrinks in ways that are not racially neutral.

More importantly, the QB-centric framing affects how patience is distributed after hiring. Coaches labeled as quarterback developers are more likely to be viewed as long-term investments, with early struggles interpreted as part of the developmental process. Others, particularly those hired for leadership, culture, or defensive expertise, encounter patience as a resource that is far more conditional. When success is measured almost exclusively through quarterback progress, tolerance for setbacks becomes uneven, and that unevenness compounds existing disparities.

In this environment, Black head coaches are less likely to be hired as projects worth waiting on and more likely to be evaluated as stopgaps. The result is a system where opportunity is constrained at the front end and patience is rationed on the back end, reinforcing the shorter evaluation window many Black head coaches face from the moment they are hired.

HIRED INTO FAILURE

Black head coaches are not only evaluated more quickly; they are also more likely to be hired into the most unstable situations in the league.

These roles often involve inherited losing rosters, limited draft capital, salary-cap constraints, or unresolved quarterback questions. In many cases, the coach is tasked with overseeing a reset rather than competing immediately, yet is still judged by short-term outcomes. When improvement is expected before foundational problems can reasonably be addressed, failure becomes a foregone conclusion.

This pattern is especially visible in quarterback context. Black head coaches are frequently hired without a proven franchise quarterback or amid uncertainty at the position, while simultaneously being measured by quarterback development benchmarks emphasized in modern hiring logic. The contradiction is difficult to ignore: coaches are expected to deliver progress at the game’s most important position without being afforded stability, continuity, or time to do so. When setbacks occur, they are framed as evidence of incapacity rather than structural limitation.

Organizational instability further compounds the issue. Front office turnover, shifting ownership priorities, and inconsistent roster-building strategies place additional strain on head coaches tasked with implementing long-term vision. While some coaches are shielded from these disruptions and granted time to align leadership structures, others absorb the consequences immediately. Black head coaches are more often positioned as solutions to dysfunction rather than beneficiaries of stability, a distinction that shapes how quickly their performance is judged.

THE PIPELINE PROBLEM

Those conditions are not accidental. They are reinforced by a coaching pipeline that consistently restricts who is positioned as a legitimate head coaching candidate in the first place. While the NFL often frames hiring disparities as a pipeline problem, the pipeline itself reflects longstanding inequities in access, visibility, and advancement. Black coaches are less likely to be placed in the roles most strongly associated with head coaching potential, particularly offensive coordinator and quarterback coach positions that now dominate hiring criteria.

Coordinator roles, especially on offense, have become the league’s primary gateway to head coaching jobs. As teams increasingly seek leaders tied to quarterback development and offensive continuity, experience as a primary play-caller has emerged as a near prerequisite. Yet Black coaches remain significantly underrepresented in those positions, not due to lack of expertise, but because access to play-calling authority and quarterback rooms has historically been limited. League mobility data shows that Black assistant coaches are more often concentrated in defensive or support roles that emphasize leadership and culture, but do not include play-calling authority or quarterback development experience that ownership groups increasingly prioritize in head coaching candidates.

This narrowing of qualifications has tangible consequences. When teams define readiness through a small set of offensive credentials, they shrink the candidate pool in ways that are not racially neutral. Coaches who do not fit the “QB whisperer” profile are viewed as riskier hires, even when their leadership experience, schematic success, or player development record is strong. As a result, Black coaches are less likely to be hired into stable, long-term situations and more likely to be brought in as corrective figures for struggling franchises rather than as developmental investments, a pattern reinforced by repeated coordinator rehiring trends noted in league hiring data.

The pipeline problem, then, is not simply about who is interviewed, but about who is prepared, promoted, and protected. When Black coaches are excluded from the roles that generate patience and repeatedly hired into circumstances that demand immediate results, the outcome becomes predictable. Limited access at the coordinator level feeds directly into shorter leashes at the head coaching level, reinforcing a cycle in which opportunity is constrained long before performance is ever evaluated, which sets the stage for how ownership networks and front office decision-making affect who advances and who does not.

WHO HOLDS POWER: OWNERSHIP, NETWORKS, AND ACCESS

Those dynamics are ultimately shaped at the top. While head coaches are the most visible figures during hiring and firing cycles, ownership groups and front offices determine which candidates are trusted, supported, and allowed to fail without being discarded. Nearly 85 percent of the league’s general managers and player personnel directors are white, according to the NFL’s 2023 Diversity and Inclusion Report, a reality that helps explain why hiring decisions often flow through familiar professional and social networks rather than broad, open evaluations. When decision-makers share similar backgrounds and career paths, the pool of “safe” candidates narrows accordingly.

Many NFL players have been explicit about how those networks operate. In a 2020 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Richard Sherman described a league culture that recycles coaches based on familiarity rather than performance, noting that “you can be terrible as a head coach, but you’ll get recycled back if you look a certain way.” He went on to argue that while policies like the Rooney Rule exist, meaningful change is limited because “the people who could change this make billions and billions. And they could care less.” His critique reflects a broader reality: access to opportunity is shaped less by merit alone than by proximity to power and acceptance within entrenched circles.

Taken together, ownership networks and front office composition help determine not only who is hired, but who is protected. Coaches backed by organizational stability and internal trust are allowed time to align leadership structures and weather early setbacks. Others, often brought in to manage dysfunction, absorb the consequences immediately. In this environment, shorter tenures are not simply the result of poor performance, but of unequal access to patience, power, and second chances; forces that operate long before wins and losses are tallied.

WHAT REAL REFORM WOULD REQUIRE

This disproportionate firing of Black coaches reinforces the idea that Black players in the league are valued more for athleticism than for leadership. The NFL has long depended on healthy Black bodies to run, catch, tackle, and entertain millions of viewers each week. But when it comes time to confer authority, patience, and institutional trust, that valuation often stops at the sideline. Black excellence is celebrated on the field, while Black leadership is treated as provisional; tested quickly, questioned sooner, and discarded faster.

If the league is serious about change, reform must move beyond symbolism and into structure. That begins with transparency in hiring, including public reporting on candidate pools, interview counts, and final shortlists, so progress can be measured by outcomes rather than intent. It requires shifting incentives away from procedural compliance and toward sustained retention, rewarding organizations that develop and support Black head coaches rather than cycling through them. Expanding access to quarterback, offensive coordinator, and play-calling roles is essential to repairing a pipeline that currently withholds the very experience used to justify exclusion. Diversifying front offices matters just as much, as general managers and ownership groups ultimately shape who is hired, protected, and given time. And finally, real reform demands longer evaluation windows, particularly in rebuilding situations, so that leadership is assessed with the same patience routinely afforded elsewhere. Until these changes are embraced, representation will remain fragile, and progress will continue to stall at the level of optics rather than outcomes.