One expensive signing will not repair a poorly designed football club.
After Manchester United’s 2–0 Champions League defeat at Atlético Madrid on 13 October, Lisandro Martínez told Prime Video: “I expect more from our technical director.” He also acknowledged that the players needed to do more. [1]
A player’s perspective can be shaped by significant others, such as their agent, dressing-room colleagues or manager. Public comments may therefore reflect wider conversations within that network, although we cannot assume who, if anyone, influenced Martínez’s remarks. For club leaders, this raises a question about organisational alignment: do players, staff and sporting leadership share an understanding of the club’s direction and each other’s responsibilities? The interview alone cannot establish which internal decisions were right, what constraints existed or who should carry the blame.
Accountability without guesswork
It could be that owners need to scrutinise how their football department makes decisions before treating another transfer or appointment as the answer. That does not excuse poor coaching or player performance. It means judging each responsibility against the authority, resources and information available.
Collective responsibility should not become collective ambiguity. The owner sets the ambition and resources. Sporting leadership must connect that ambition to the playing approach, recruitment, academy pathway and performance support. Specialists need a meaningful voice, but someone still has to own the final decision.
The cost of choosing the wrong remedy
The Independent Football Regulator’s draft State of the Game report provides an important financial context: 94% of clubs across the top five English leagues were loss-making in 2025/26. [2]
That is not a measure of recruitment quality, and it does not explain any individual club’s results. It strengthens the case for examining what the next commitment of money or staff time is intended to change.
Four questions before the commitment
What problem are we solving?
A disappointing result is an outcome, not a diagnosis. Establish whether the issue concerns capability, priorities, coordination or delivery before selecting the remedy.
Who is responsible, and who is accountable?
Be clear about who is responsible for doing the work, who is ultimately accountable for the decision and its outcome, whose expertise needs to be consulted, and who must be kept informed throughout the process.
Clubs are full of ambitious people. That ambition can help the organisation progress, but the pursuit of personal status and standing can also take priority over achieving the shared goal. Clear responsibilities matter, alongside recognition for what people contribute to the club’s objectives.
What insights could change our view?
Ask this before the preferred answer becomes a commitment. Useful challenge must be able to alter the decision, not merely endorse it.
How will we judge whether it worked?
Agree the intended improvement and review point in advance. Examine delivery as well as results, without rewriting the original rationale after the event.
Consider a hypothetical club choosing between another senior signing and improving the support around the existing squad. Neither option is automatically wiser. The leadership task is to identify the constraint, weigh the alternatives and establish who will deliver the change. Simply copying a rival’s spending does none of those things.
My work across professional football, high-performance sport and Sporting Director education informs that approach. [3] Good governance should make a difficult football decision clearer and more accountable, not bury it beneath more meetings.
Darren Robinson Sport brings together my work in independent club and performance reviews, football decision-making and developing the people responsible for delivery. The Sporting Director Brief will examine the choices behind those responsibilities.
Sources and context
[1] Interview. Reuters, 13 October 2026, and TNT Sports interview reporting. Wording checked against published reporting, not a claim of watching the complete footage. Original Prime Video Sport post.
[2] Financial context. Independent Football Regulator, State of the Game 2026, section 03. Reported scope: top five English leagues, 2025/26. The 94% statistic is not a recruitment-quality or causal performance measure.
[3] Practitioner background. UCFB: Darren Robinson.
Independent commentary on public material, not commissioned work for Manchester United or a BBC publication. No club or broadcaster endorsement is implied.