Worrying trend in Argentina: sports directors as fuses.

Argentine football is undergoing a disturbing change: the sports director is replacing the coach as the first fuse in times of crisis. However, this figure, far from becoming consolidated, has become a scapegoat to cover up poor management. It is crucial to redefine and make this role transparent to prevent it from continuing to be a simple emergency resource.

We are witnessing an important and dangerous paradigm shift in Argentine football. It has always been said (and it is still repeated) that the “first fuse” that blows when a team is in crisis is the coach, but we see day after day that a figure emerges that comes to replace the technical director: the sports director. Much easier, much more at hand, much cheaper even, because generally fewer people work in a technical secretariat than in a professional technical team.

We see how confusion reigns, how it is the same to talk about sports directors, managers, football secretaries, technical secretaries, football councils. Everything seems to be the same and it is not. Everything is mixed together. That is why I am convinced that the term “sports director” is impossible to apply in our country because no person who holds that position has full authority to intervene in a comprehensive sports management that covers all or almost all the football spheres of a club. It sounds very good, but it is far from reality, unfortunately. Not even club leaders such as Diego Milito could do it, who even publicly acknowledged that his role as sports director at Racing had a ceiling and could not build more than that.

So, I propose to talk about “professional football director”, a specific management role for the first team, with links to youth football and other areas if the possibility existed, but focused on the first team. Less ambitious from the poster but more assertive.

My humble experience in the world of professional football taught me that without being in the day to day of a club it is very difficult to give an opinion because things happen that are not seen from the outside, but in this case it merits it and I prefer to run the risk of being wrong in my analysis.

I want to point out the case of Ariel Michaloutsos at Newell’s as a painful example of all this. And I clarify in advance that I do not know Michaloutsos personally, I never spoke or had direct contact with him. But his departure from Newell’s felt like a blow to all of us who believe in a certain form of management. Seen from the outside, judging by interviews or a video that the institution itself published in May, it seemed like an interesting project in the medium and long term.

“The idea is that decisions are institutional, not from one person. I had the word of the club president (Ignacio Astore) for this to happen (…) I do not believe that a team can be put together, if you are not economically powerful, from one day to the next. There has to be a process and a method that transcends the people who are or pass through the institution,” Michaloutsos said in that video. But the leaders need new fuses, new leaders. And that is where the sporting director falls, a protective umbrella for the leadership, a culprit if things go wrong, responsible for “the composition of the squad in the transfer markets of the current year,” as the club reported in a pathetic statement to announce the dismissal of Michaloutsos. As if the sporting director were the owner of all the decisions and the leaders, immune, could point the finger of blame.

Let's get to the bottom of the matter: in Argentina almost nobody trusts the sporting directors, they only use them to magically solve years of bad administration, without a vision for the future, and as a means of making excuses, which distorts and contaminates all essence. There are undoubtedly exceptions and we have to use them to continue believing that a radical change is possible.

It is also important to point out that in most cases the mistake is made of not explaining what is done, how it is done and what are the foundations of a true sporting direction. In general terms, the work methodology is not explained and this feeds any kind of suspicion and comments that only feed the distrust in certain pillars that should not be put into question. As long as these pillars are not clarified, doubts about the credibility of the sports management will continue. And not because of what happens outside but because of what we do or do not do from within. From my point of view, I think that we need to open up more, debate more, explain more and show more so that it is understood what it is all about and the idea that "four or five charlatans get together in an office to mess around all day" is eliminated.

Monchi exhibits in 13 masterclasses the details of the successful model of Seville and we all look at them as a mirror, as a reference and as everything we would like for our The clubs. I have even seen Fran Garagarza's press conferences after the transfer market explaining the details of what happened in the window. Why can't we replicate it in Argentina? Don't try to convince me that it's impossible here because I refuse to believe it. Maybe in other countries it's not necessary because the public doesn't demand it, but here it's worth doing it even if they call it smoke and mirrors and only judge the result. Ultimately, it's about self-convincing and transparency, and I'm not saying that if it's not done it's because of obscurity.

Let's not debate whether a player is good or bad, promoting banality (in fact there are no good or bad players, but those who fit the profile we're looking for or not); let's debate and show the process of why that player was hired. Let's lose the fear of what they'll say, if at the end of the day criticism will be there in any circumstance. As long as that fear persists, those outside (managers, fans, journalists) will have more food for thought. And when I say “those outside” I don’t mean it in a pejorative way or as if they were enemies, but because they are the ones we have to “convince.”

We can all be (today or tomorrow) a Michaloutsos. We should all “stand in solidarity” with him, because those of us who believe in that work structure in some way suffered a setback with his departure. These days Michaloutsos was left alone, vulnerable, ridiculed for having spoken of scouting and big data. At this rate, there will be new Michaloutsos in the short term and it is something that we must somehow prevent, but not only by blaming outside but with a self-critical look inward. If the concept is not understood, we have our degree of responsibility.

Franckabudski Camilo