There was a time when the terms manager or head coach carried absolute authority. In English football, especially, the manager was not just responsible for results on the pitch but for shaping the very identity of a club. The recruitment and scouting department, youth promotion, and long-term planning often flowed from one central figure.
That figure is quietly disappearing.
Across Europe’s top leagues, clubs are increasingly opting for a head coach model, supported – and often guided – by sporting directors, recruitment and scouting departments, and data-led planning teams. The change has crept in through job titles, organisational charts, and subtle shifts in power.
This evolution is not rooted in distrust of coaches, nor is it a rejection of strong leadership. Rather, it reflects a broader attempt by clubs to protect continuity in an era defined by short tenures, financial risk, and constant competitive pressure. Football institutions are seeking structures that survive individuals.
Yet as the manager role fades, a new tension has emerged. Coaches remain the public face of results, the first to be judged and often the first to be dismissed. But their influence over how squads are assembled has, in many cases, been reduced.
The modern game now sits at an uncomfortable intersection: clubs designing long-term systems, and coaches asked to deliver short-term outcomes within them. Understanding why this shift happened – and where it repeatedly breaks down – is key to understanding responsibility without authority that defines elite football today.
Why Clubs Are Opting for a Head Coach Model
From a club’s perspective, the move toward a head coach model is not strictly a rejection of managerial authority but a recalibration of it.
Modern football institutions operate in an environment where financial margins are tight, squad turnover is constant, and managerial tenures are increasingly short. Placing long-term sporting direction in the hands of one individual has become a risk many clubs are no longer willing to take.
By separating coaching from recruitment and scouting departments and long-term planning, clubs aim to reduce dependency on any single figure. Sporting directors and recruitment departments are tasked with building squads that align with a defined club identity, one that can outlast changes in the dugout.
When a head coach departs, the system remains, and the next appointment is expected to slot into an existing framework rather than reset it.
This structure allows clubs to think beyond immediate results. Recruitment strategies are shaped around age profiles, resale value, and stylistic continuity, rather than the short-term needs of a coach fighting for job security. In theory, this protects the club from expensive overhauls every time the technical area changes hands.
There is also a practical advantage in succession planning. A head coach model simplifies replacement, enabling clubs to act quickly without dismantling entire squads. The footballing vision belongs to the institution, not the individual, making continuity easier to maintain even amid instability on the touchline.
In this sense, the rise of the head coach model is not about diminishing the importance of coaching. It is about safeguarding the club itself.
Football institutions are increasingly designed to survive change, and the head coach model is viewed as a mechanism that makes that survival more likely.
Why Coaches Still Seek Managerial Authority
While clubs have clear reasons for favouring a head coach model, the coaching perspective tells a different, equally rational story. At the elite level, coaching is not simply about instruction and motivation; it is about designing systems that depend on specific profiles, relationships, and rhythms. When those elements are misaligned, even the most coherent tactical ideas can unravel.
Modern coaches are judged almost exclusively on results. League position, points totals, and progression in competitions remain the primary metrics of success, regardless of who assembled the squad. When performances dip, it is the coach who faces scrutiny, not the recruitment and scouting department or the long-term planning committee.
This imbalance explains why many coaches seek greater involvement in recruitment and scouting. The desire is less about total control and more about their opinion having a higher relevance in such a system – a direct plea for responsibility without authority to be addressed.
A pressing system requires athletic profiles. A positional structure demands technical security. A high defensive line depends on specific physical and cognitive traits. Without influence over these variables, coaches are often left adapting their ideas to players never intended to execute them.
There is also the matter of time. Long-term recruitment strategies often operate on horizons that stretch beyond a coach’s expected tenure. Coaches, aware of their limited job security, naturally prioritise immediate functionality over distant potential. When those timelines clash, frustration follows.
In this context, calls for managerial authority are not rooted in nostalgia for a fading role. They reflect a practical need for alignment between responsibility without authority and influence. Coaches are not resisting modernisation; they are seeking the authority required to deliver within it.
Case Study One – Nuno Espírito Santo and Nottingham Forest
Nottingham Forest initially offered a rare example of stability within the head coach model. Nuno Espírito Santo guided the club to an impressive 2024/2025 Premier League finish, restoring structure, organisation and competitive clarity after a period of turbulence. On the pitch, Forest looked coherent – a team with defined roles and a clear tactical identity.
That sense of stability, however, proved fragile. Following the appointment of Edu as Global Head of Football, Nuno’s opinion on recruitment and scouting departments suddenly seemed ignored, leaving him responsible for performances shaped by decisions he no longer fully controlled.
Forest’s case illustrates an important point: early success does not guarantee long-term stability when responsibility without authority undermines even a competent coach. Even within a head coach model, clarity of influence remains essential.
Case Study Two: Enzo Maresca – Chelsea
Enzo Maresca leaving his role as Chelsea head coach in January 2026 illustrates how off-field tensions can destabilise even a coach delivering tangible success. Despite winning trophies and finishing strongly in the league, his departure was driven less by results and more by internal dysfunction.
Maresca grew increasingly frustrated with the club’s internal structures and levels of support. Some of his public remarks were viewed by the board as exposing private disagreements and implicitly questioning their authority, accelerating a breakdown in trust.
Tensions also emerged around squad management. Disagreements over player workloads, rotation, and the pace at which young players should be integrated placed Maresca at odds with Chelsea’s recruitment and scouting department. These unresolved differences created sustained friction behind the scenes and undermined alignment on long-term direction.
Ultimately, the combination of strained relationships and conflicting views on control and decision-making proved decisive.
Chelsea’s case highlights the structural dilemma many modern managers or head coaches face: accountability for results without full influence over the systems designed to support their tactical vision. In Maresca’s case, misaligned responsibility without authority outweighed his on-field achievements.
Case Study Three: Rúben Amorim – Manchester United
Rúben Amorim’s tenure at Manchester United further illustrates the challenges head coaches face when authority is limited. Amorim openly expressed frustration at how little control he had over recruitment and scouting departments.
In his final interview, he made it clear that he joined the club to be the manager, not just a head coach. This remark highlighted his belief that accountability for results should be matched by influence over the squad and key strategic decisions. The statement exposes the tension between his tactical vision and the club’s hierarchy, demonstrating how responsibility without authority can make a coach’s role unsustainable.
Amorim’s case shows that even coaches once viewed as highly rated can struggle when managerial authority across all departments is not given.
Where the Structure Breaks – Misalignment in Manager or Head Coach Roles
Viewed together, the cases of Nuno Espírito Santo, Enzo Maresca, and Rúben Amorim reveal a consistent pattern. In each instance, on-field struggles were preceded – and often accelerated – by an erosion of authority. Recruitment direction shifted, influence narrowed, and accountability remained firmly with the coach.
At Nottingham Forest, authority changed hands without a corresponding adjustment in responsibility. At Chelsea, structural complexity diluted the coach’s influence from the outset, turning disagreement into friction. At Manchester United, a coach whose identity depended on control found himself operating within a framework that could not accommodate it.
Different contexts, same outcome.
The issue is not the existence of sporting directors or recruitment and scouting departments. It is the absence of clearly defined power lines. When coaches are tasked with delivering results but excluded from shaping the conditions required to achieve them, instability becomes inevitable.
These sackings were not sudden failures of coaching. They were the end result of misalignment – between responsibility to execute the club’s vision without managerial authority to pull the levers that result in the club’s goals. Until those tensions are addressed structurally, modern football will continue to repeat the same cycle under different names.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Enzo Maresca’s Replacement Announced: Chelsea Appoint Liam Rosenior as New Head Coach After Strasbourg Farewell
Coexistence – Where the Head Coach Model and Manager Can Align
Manchester City provides a modern example of coexistence functioning at the highest level. On paper, City operate a head coach model, with Hugo Viana as Director of Football and Pep Guardiola as head coach. In practice, the dynamic is far more nuanced.
While roles are formally separated, Guardiola’s authority within the structure is substantial. His influence stretches across recruitment profiles, squad evolution, and long-term planning, ensuring that sporting decisions remain aligned with his tactical vision. This balance allows City to benefit from institutional continuity without diluting coaching coherence.
The reason this model works is not accidental. Guardiola’s authority has been earned through sustained success across multiple clubs and leagues. His track record grants him a level of trust that enables genuine collaboration rather than top-down constraint. City’s structure accommodates this by aligning institutional planning with the demands of an elite coach.
However, this also exposes the central challenge for most clubs. Granting such authority to a coach without Guardiola’s pedigree carries obvious risk. As a result, incoming head coaches are often offered responsibility without comparable influence, creating the very imbalance that destabilises projects elsewhere.
Manchester City’s example shows that coexistence is possible, but conditional. Separation of roles does not require suppression of authority. When influence is calibrated to expertise and trust, the head coach model can thrive. When it is withheld by default, friction becomes inevitable.
Diagnosis, Not a Verdict
The modern divide between manager and head coach is not a battle for superiority, but a reflection of football’s evolving structures. Clubs are increasingly drawn to head coach models for stability, long‑term planning, and institutional control. Managers, meanwhile, continue to seek authority that matches the responsibility they carry.
The case studies examined – Nuno Espírito Santo, Enzo Maresca, and Rúben Amorim – reveal a recurring fault line. Problems emerge not from the existence of a head coach system but from misalignment between responsibility and influence. When coaches are held accountable for outcomes without sufficient control over recruitment, development, and squad direction, tension becomes inevitable.
Manchester City demonstrate that coexistence is possible. Clear structures, earned trust, and calibrated authority allow separation of roles without suppressing expertise. Yet this balance is difficult to replicate, particularly for clubs appointing new or unproven coaches while withholding meaningful influence by default.
Ultimately, the question is not whether clubs should choose managers or head coaches. It is whether their structures allow football decisions to be made coherently, collaboratively, and with accountability shared rather than displaced. Until that alignment is achieved, the cycle of frustration and premature sackings will continue – regardless of the title on the door.
Main Photo
Credit: IMAGO / Mark Pain
Recording Date: 01.01.2026
