Of the managers in world football, very few are immune to the sack. Most are merely interchangeable cogs, good for a few years until the results are not quite what they should be—then gone. Even Jose Mourinho, the so-called "Special One," was fired by Roman Abramovich of Chelsea.
Queue Arsene Wenger, one of the most respected coaches in all of football. He has been at Arsenal since 1996; that's about 15 years. To illuminate just how aberrant his security has been, look at Chelsea, who have had 11 managers in that time span.
But then again, Arsenal have always been the antithesis of what Abramovich's team has represented. The Gunners' chief operates with a poignant sense of purpose—he does not purchase players he intends to squirrel away, and he does not spend money if he doesn't have to.
Arsenal's commitment to youth during Wenger's era has received alternating plaudits and condemnations. Many laud Wenger for being one of the few English managers to take a chance on youth.
Indeed, he seems one of the few trusted enough to do so. Cesc Fabregas is the most recent example: not yet given a fair shake at Barcelona, he moved to London and quickly rose to prominence.
Still, Arsenal have failed to win a trophy since their F.A. Cup triumph in 2005, and rumbles have been growing daily, rumbles that maybe Wenger's welcome is wearing thin.
While he has been wildly successful by most measures, fans are growing restless at the Gunners' lack of silverware in recent years. It is his stubborn refusal to spend in the transfer market that so irks Arsenal's faithful.
Is it fair? Probably not. That Manchester United struck gold with Cristiano Ronaldo can be attributed to luck, and his subsequent sale is still funding their ventures. Chelsea's spending power is rivaled only by Manchester City, and it is not fair to measure Wenger's frugality against them.
One need look only to Liverpool to see that spending and success are not necessarily related. While Benitez often complained about a lack of funds, he spent a gaudy sum in transfer fees during his time on Merseyside, eventually getting his marching orders due to a lack of results.
Wenger should perhaps be seen as a staunch and admirable beacon of hope against the wave of gluttonous and unsustainable spending that his gripped English football's highest powers. If England were more committed to youth like Wenger, perhaps the national side would be more successful.
Well, maybe not.
Wenger has survived for 15 long years, but his time is almost up. The writing is on the wall, and it is in blood red: win or leave.
Does Wenger feel the pressure? I believe so. It would seem that he has reluctantly acceded to the wishes of the masses.
The question remains, though: Will it be enough?