Chelsea Football Club have officially parted ways with head coach Enzo Maresca, a decision confirmed by the club on 1 January 2026. As expected, the announcement has sparked mixed reactions among Chelsea supporters and the wider football community, ranging from frustration to disbelief.
According to reports, the club’s decision was influenced by a poor run of form, one win in seven Premier League matches, leaving Chelsea fifth in the league table, alongside growing tensions between Maresca and the club’s hierarchy. There were also suggestions of excessive micromanagement from above and the Italian’s frustration at not being backed with his preferred transfer targets.
In my view, this is a poorly judged and short-sighted decision by the Chelsea ownership. And here’s why.
A Flawed Project from the Start
Since the arrival of Enzo Maresca, Chelsea have clearly lacked experience, leadership, and balance within the squad. Crucially, this is not Maresca’s fault. The responsibility lies squarely with the club’s ownership and sporting structure.
From the outset, the project pursued by the owners showed a worrying lack of football understanding. Chelsea committed fully to building a squad dominated by young players, largely aged 18 to 24—with little consideration for the realities of elite-level transitions.
You simply cannot overhaul an entire squad in such a short period, especially during a transition phase, without embedding two or three experienced leaders to guide the team through difficult moments. Chelsea failed to provide this foundation for Maresca, which once again exposes the shortcomings of the ownership model.
The BlueCo Era and Transfer Excess
Chelsea are currently owned by the BlueCo consortium, led by Todd Boehly (chairman) and Clearlake Capital, with key figures including Behdad Eghbali, José Feliciano, Hansjörg Wyss, and Mark Walter.
Since the 2022 takeover, Chelsea’s transfer activity has been relentless and eye-watering:
2022/23:
Enzo Fernández (€121m), Wesley Fofana (€80.4m), Mykhaylo Mudryk (€70m), Marc Cucurella (€65.3m), Raheem Sterling (€56.2m)
2023/24:
Moisés Caicedo (€116m), Roméo Lavia (€62.1m), Christopher Nkunku (€60m), Cole Palmer (€47m), Axel Disasi (€45m)
2024/25:
Pedro Neto (€60m), João Félix (€52m), Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall (€35.4m)
2025/26:
João Pedro (€63.7m), Jamie Gittens (€56m), Alejandro Garnacho (€46.2m), Estêvão (€45m)
This transfer history tells a clear story: quantity over quality.
A significant number of these signings were “wants” rather than “needs.” Several players were brought in simply because Chelsea could sign them, not because they addressed specific tactical or structural deficiencies. In many cases, Chelsea paid inflated fees driven by competitive bidding, while other clubs showed restraint and walked away.
Maresca Was Not the Problem
Despite these structural flaws, the progress Maresca managed to achieve in such a short space of time is telling. Yes, he was relatively inexperienced at the elite level, but he was far from being the core issue at Chelsea.
It is both irresponsible and unfair for owners to impose a weak and incoherent transfer philosophy on a manager and then hold him solely accountable when results fail to meet expectations. Managers need alignment, stability, and the right player profiles, not constant interference and mismatched recruitment.
Chelsea’s decision to part ways with Enzo Maresca feels less like a solution and more like another attempt to mask deeper structural problems. Until the club addresses its recruitment strategy, leadership imbalance, and ownership interference, changing the manager will only continue a damaging cycle. Maresca may be gone, but Chelsea’s real problems remain firmly in place.
