-
Ryan O’Hanlon
In 2004, Arsenal celebrated their second Premier League title in three seasons, but even more remarkably, they completed the entire season undefeated. More than two decades later, the Invincibles remain the only team in Premier League history to achieve this feat.
They are also the last Arsenal squad to claim the Premier League title, largely due to events following that remarkable season. The construction of the Emirates Stadium, London’s first major stadium of its kind, began shortly thereafter. Although the intimate atmosphere of the 35,000-seat Highbury was cherished by fans, the 60,000-seat Emirates was intended to unlock new revenue streams vital for competing against commercial powerhouses like Manchester United and a newly billionaire-funded Chelsea.
In stark contrast to the United States, securing public funding for a stadium would lead to massive backlash, compelling Arsenal to finance the project independently. To do so, they took out a $350 million loan from the bank. This meant Arsenal had to divert a significant portion of its revenue to servicing this debt, restricting their ability to invest in players, especially at a time when they were recovering from the world-record fee Real Madrid paid for Zinedine Zidane.
As a result, Arsenal’s performance declined. They finished second the following season but did not reach such heights again until 2015-16—a campaign that felt underwhelming as they trailed behind underdogs Leicester City. The team’s deteriorating expectations were epitomized by manager Arsene Wenger’s quote after a 2012 FA Cup loss: “The first trophy is to finish in the top four.”
Wenger’s control was also pivotal in this decline. Having arrived in 1996 and achieved remarkable success, he was integral to all major decisions at Arsenal. He openly stated in 2017, “Some coaches only manage the team, and they are happy with it. I am not like that.” Wenger dictated player acquisitions, game strategies, and on-field tactics. However, this control was precisely what led to the club’s struggles post-Invincibles.
The banks only approved the loan for the Emirates if Arsenal ensured that Wenger would continue as manager for at least the subsequent five years. Essentially, Arsenal leveraged their influential manager to secure their financial future, paving the way for a realignment in how club management operates today—one where coaching power is diluted.
– Premier League Power Rankings: Rating all 20 teams
– Is hiring a caretaker manager ever a good idea?
– Ranking the top 15 USMNT U-21 prospects of 2026
The Decline of the Traditional Manager
In various sports, coaches possess significant control. Basketball coaches orchestrate substitutions and tactics in real-time, while in American football, they directly design plays for the game. Yet in soccer, despite having five substitutes, coaches often find themselves merely overseeing the game, their influence nearly nullified once it commences.
Historically, managers like Wenger left their mark through strategic changes beyond the pitch. Wenger’s legacy at Arsenal was built on his willingness to embrace foreign talents, allowing the club to recruit stars like Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira before others recognized their potential.
He became known for fielding entirely non-English starting elevens and for fostering a culture of player fitness and health awareness, as Vieira noted in 2018: “When Arsene arrived, he changed things.” Wenger promoted nutritional discipline and body care, crafting a transformative environment for players.
His emphasis on innovative, attacking football, combined with Arsenal’s financial leverage in the league, laid the groundwork for their dominance. Similarly, Sir Alex Ferguson’s enduring success at Manchester United stemmed from his holistic management approach—focusing beyond immediate matches. Ferguson famously stated about team cycles: “The goal was to evolve gradually, moving older players out and younger players in.” His foresight and understanding of player performance cycles proved crucial to United’s sustained success.
Yet, the essence of management has changed drastically. Clubs today operate more as corporations, driven by revenue goals rather than pure athletic success. The ownership structures increasingly influence decision-making, leading many clubs to prefer a collective management approach rather than centralized power in a single manager.
The Rise of the Head Coach
In the 1997-98 season, Manchester United generated €132.4 million in revenue, leading the world. Today, Real Madrid tops the chart with €1.61 billion, reflecting the radical transformation into corporate structures rather than traditional clubs. Owners, particularly those with American financial backgrounds, approach clubs as business investments, seeking profitability rather than focusing solely on competitive success.
This corporate mindset raises questions about the authority given to managers, whose average tenure in England now stands at just 1.42 years. Would any corporation willingly bestow substantial decision-making power to someone with such fleeting stability?
It becomes evident that, in a profession where individual power is declining, clubs expect their coaches to adapt to collaborative decision-making. The imbalance between management expectations and coach ambitions suggests an evolving landscape. Clubs like Liverpool have embraced this model, transitioning from mediocre performances to dominance through cooperation among staff. However, this structure can lead to instability, as seen when front-office members leave unexpectedly.
Most coaches enter the field with ambitions of leading decisively, not navigating bureaucratic frameworks. The experiences of Ruben Amorim at Manchester United and Enzo Maresca at Chelsea highlight the clash between traditional coaching aspirations and modern club structures that render the role of a powerful manager obsolete.
As the landscape shifts, big names like Thomas Tuchel and Mauricio Pochettino may seem appealing, but their success will largely depend on how well they navigate these changing expectations.
Should Pep Guardiola exit Manchester City, the new coach is unlikely to inherit the same level of power and influence—reflecting the overall trend down a more diluted managerial path.
The change in coaching dynamics may lead to inefficiencies as clubs adopt corporate structures, often resulting in confusion over decision-making. Historically, singular managerial control facilitated clear communication and identity development for a club. Now, with multiple voices competing for influence, many clubs must navigate a complex web of accountability.
Arsenal’s recent return to the top may encapsulate this evolution. After Arsene Wenger’s departure, the club sought head coaches rather than traditional managers, resulting in significant operational shifts. While now enjoying a more streamlined decision-making process under Mikel Arteta, the lingering challenges of adapting to a new age of sports management remain evident.