The debate over whether Michael Emenalo quit or was fired by Chelsea FC rages on. One thing is abundantly clear, however: Stamford Bridge is in for a lot of change following what was – for better or worse – a very influential reign as technical director.
Though I have written extensively on the subject, ultimately it would be tasteless to out-and-out celebrate Chelsea’s loss of Michael Emenalo. Writing on the subject requires careful thought. The man has several small children, and his and their lives will invariably change after this.
This is bigger than football. In the end, the departure of Michael Emenalo is a departure of large proportions for the club. Many of Chelsea’s younger support have never known the club without his influence. His exit raises the question whether Chelsea can be a healthy, successful and influential institution in the football world moving forward without him.
The simple answer to this question is yes. The club can move on successfully from Michael Emenalo and it will, depending on the choices. More than anything else, Michael Emenalo institutionalized a sense of transience at Chelsea. That will be the first thing the club – and his successor – need to change.
Chelsea’s biggest issue – one that could take a generation of hard work and turnover to change – is that players view the team as more of a hotel than a home. Chelsea FC is a nice place to play for a couple of years. You accrue a pretty nice paycheck while living in London, and have your children learn English.
Must Read: Chelsea reportedly interested in Lucas Moura at the expense of Willian
For too long, that has been accepted. It cuts to the importance of youth development. Players who have been raised within the club pull harder for it. They are the ones who make a difference when things get rough.
Football is ultimately about community. When youth players play for a club, they go home and their families are excited about it, as are their friends and the people they know and who raised them. It is not the same with players for whom the club means nothing. Those players are passengers in the club’s history, as opposed to builders of it.
This can, of course, be usurped in some circumstances with purchased players. Javier Zanetti is an example, as are Gianluigi Buffon or Sergio Ramos at Juventus and Real Madrid, respectively. But more often than not, long-term influential players who move a club – emotionally – are homegrown. Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Raul, Alessandro Del Piero, Thomas Muller, Xavi and Lionel Messi are all associated with THEIR club because it is not a one-way street to players like that. The club is as much a part of them as they are a part of it.
Chelsea under Michael Emenalo was too much of a rotating stock show. Players get wind of that and they know the club does not really care about them. Things go south from there. They don’t care about the club as much. It’s fair to feel that way on their part, it’s natural. But it’s also poor management.
In the year following Chelsea’s horror show title defense few of the right lessons were learned. Emenalo’s style of management turned the players into flat-track bullies. Why fight harder? Why risk injury? Why bleed for the cause if you know you’ll be on your way in a couple years? All it does is hurt your chances of earning a higher salary and taking care of your family later.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. At Chelsea, they just get going somewhere else and that has been acceptable.
Emenalo’s approach encouraged a soulless relationship between club and players, and that is the current mountain that Chelsea need to conquer. The first was to break into the elite. Those of you who are new don’t know how nice it is simply being in the rarified atmosphere, honestly.
The next challenged, though, is to establish a culture. Unfortunately, it appears that when Chelsea were on the brink of having done that, they slipped.
Players of character would have fought through Chelsea’s horror show year. They must not forget what happened in 2015/16. It must never happen again, and yet behaving the way that Chelsea had continued under Emenalo hinted that they learned nothing.
Ultimately, some of the players who made Emenalo’s reign appear more successful than it really was were players he did not sign. Didier Drogba, Frank Lampard, John Terry and Petr Cech were all from before Emenalo and anchored his teams later on in their careers. His recruitment dressed what was already a very strong core. But as soon as that core left he failed to replace it with mentally resilient players.
Counterpoint: Michael Emenalo succeeded in every way as Chelsea's technical director
Michael Emenalo was successful in terms of trophies, but ultimately he failed because he could have done so much more for the club. Chelsea is a wonderful club to play for in a beautiful part of one of the world’s most spectacular cities. It has marvelous and well-humored fans and a global reach. It has one of the best most benevolent owners in sport and a great training ground.
For cosmopolitan and intellectual players it could very well be the best place in the world to play football. Emenalo’s failure is that he failed to capitalize on that. He over-complicated what is actually a very simple sell.
Chelsea players should not be talking about what a dream it would be to play in Madrid or Barcelona or Munich. Those superpowers know they do not need to sell their club in the same way. Michael Emenalo in many ways cheapened what he didn’t need to. Chelsea are a successful club with a good history and a lot of appeal. He should have filled it with players who understand they are lucky to play there.
Next: Andreas Christensen explored new role as Denmark's right-back
There was never any reason to cheapen Chelsea by making it into a carousel of loans and sales. A proper football club, a superpower, should be run with pride, respect and tradition. Emenalo’s failure to do so is where he failed at Chelsea, wasting a phenomenal sum of Roman Abramovich’s money and tarnishing the badge all at once.