Welcome to issue #027 of Contemporary Football, your inside look at how the game really works behind the scenes.
Monday to Friday, you’ll uncover a new perspective on football business, and sometimes a deeper story that sharpens your thinking and gives you an edge in the beautiful game.
If you need support on your football journey, just write me.
Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking a lot about Sporting Directors lately.
Probably because of the number of clubs I’ve been speaking with during these months.
But also because there is endless debate about their role, the limits of their responsibilities, and their objectives.
And the more I see how the role works in real life, the more something becomes obvious:
Most clubs structure the Sporting Director position in a way that makes no sense for how modern football actually operates.
Football today is not far from other industries.
And player trading is crucial for most clubs.
Never before has football required so much financial expertise.
Where the role breaks
Most Sporting Directors are very good at the football side.
They understand players.
Scouting.
Pathways.
Development.
The daily life of a squad.
If the job stopped there, it would be perfect.
But that’s not what happens.
They are then asked to take decisions that are essentially financial decisions:
transfer fees
salary structures
amortisation impact
resale logic
risk distribution
cash timing
portfolio balance
The problem?
They were never trained for this.
We wouldn’t give someone a €30–50m investment budget in any other industry without financial education.
In football, we do it every summer.
And just to be clear: this is not about judging Sporting Directors.
It’s about building the right structure around them so they can excel.
Someone can be world-class at running the sporting side of a club and still have zero interest, or zero skills, in managing the financial impact of a transfer.
And that’s normal.
You can’t be the best surgeon and the best hospital ceo.
Often in clubs, the two roles are confused and overlap.
And sporting directors are judged for what they are not.
What this creates
A Sporting Director making a financial decision is not deciding.
He is guessing.
And the club pays for the guess.
Sometimes for many years.
Again: this is not a criticism of sporting directors. Not at all.
It’s protecting their role and their club.
We are talking about how some clubs are structured.
How the role should actually work
In my view, the Sporting Director should own the sporting side, full stop:
identity of the squad
style of play
scouting model
talent pathway
coach alignment
development strategy
But the final decision on transfers, the part that impacts valuation, risk, cash flow, future flexibility, should sit with the ownership/financial side of the club.
Someone who understands:
valuation
portfolio thinking
cash cycles
risk exposure
market timing
Two roles.
Two skill sets.
Much cleaner governance.
Why this matters for the next decade
Clubs are becoming investment vehicles, content businesses, and trading operations on top of being sporting organisations.
The Sporting Director of 2020 cannot be the Sporting Director of 2030.
Clubs will need people who can:
think like investors
operate like analysts
and understand squad-building like coaches.
And they will need to separate sporting decisions from financial approvals, the same way mature industries do.
This shift is coming.
New owners should bear this in mind.
Do you think Sporting Directors should keep full control…
Or should clubs split the sporting and financial responsibilities?
I’m curious to hear how you see it, because it will shape the next generation of football executives.
That’s all for today!
See you tomorrow,
Federico