The abrupt departures of Enzo Maresca from Chelsea and Ruben Amorim from Manchester United this week have thrown a harsh spotlight on the modern power dynamics within football clubs. Both managers exited after making pointed public comments about a lack of support and their diminished roles, but their sackings raise a pressing question: when will the executives who wield real power step into the media glare?
The Managerial Epitaphs: Speaking Out and Paying the Price
Enzo Maresca's lament that "the last 48 hours have been the worst because many people didn't support us" and Ruben Amorim's insistence that "I came here to be the manager, not to be the coach" proved to be their professional undoing. Maresca's comments sparked a chain reaction at Stamford Bridge leading to his dismissal, while at Old Trafford, a rapidly deteriorating relationship between Amorim and the club hierarchy erupted into a civil war, culminating in his sacking on Monday.
This is the inherent risk for head coaches and managers, who are contractually obliged to face journalists in press conferences up to four times a week, plus additional interviews with rights-holding broadcasters. For many, it is an unwelcome distraction, especially during poor runs of form. Some, however, attempt to use the platform to apply pressure on their superiors.
The Accountability Gap: Coaches Front Up, Directors Hide
Amorim, in particular, was noted for his striking honesty with the media, rarely dodging difficult questions even when his answers were detrimental. He faced the music, accepted criticism, and dealt with the consequences. This reflects the traditional model where the dugout occupant is held solely accountable for results and team performance.
Yet, as both Maresca and Amorim discovered, the manager is no longer the most important figure at a major football club. The real power often lies with sporting directors, co-directors, and ownership figures who operate away from public scrutiny. At Chelsea, co-sporting directors Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart gave an interview in 2024 and some internal media talks, but their names were absent from the statement announcing Maresca's sacking. This, despite having publicly championed his appointment.
Similarly, at Manchester United, director of football Jason Wilcox largely operates in the shadows. He made a rare foray into in-house media during a positive run in October. While minority owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe is more visible, he is not a football expert. The knowledgeable football professionals who shape strategy and recruitment consistently avoid the accountability that is heaped upon the manager.
A Bundesliga Blueprint and the Need for Change
The contrast with the Bundesliga is stark. In Germany, sporting directors regularly address the media. When Bayer Leverkusen parted ways with Erik ten Hag this season, sporting director Simon Rolfes fronted up with a statement and subsequent interviews, setting a standard for transparency.
The core issue is one of skewed responsibility. Clubs like West Ham have seen managers like Graham Potter and Nuno Espírito Santo arrive mid-season to inherit unbalanced squads built on years of poor recruitment. Yet, it was Nuno who had to apologise to fans after a desperate defeat, not the executives who oversaw the flawed long-term strategy.
Football clubs are now complex businesses with large teams implementing supposed strategies. When things go wrong, it is unjust for one person—the manager—to bear the full brunt of a trial by media, often leading to their dismissal for speaking out of sheer frustration. The events at Chelsea and Manchester United this week underscore that it is time for those who truly hold the power to step forward, explain their visions, and share the accountability they so readily delegate.
