So 2026 begins with one man who celebrated Chelsea’s Club World Cup win still in a job. Donald Trump’s powers of survival, however, are not matched by Enzo Maresca. The dramatic decline in his fortunes, from demolishing Barcelona to departing Chelsea in barely six weeks, can reflect on the decidedly strange press conference he gave after beating Everton, when he talked of the “worst 48 hours” of his tenure. If the last 48 might have been worse again, it may also mean that the Chelsea hierarchy, like many others, did not actually place much weight on the Club World Cup.
It also shows the enduring instability at Stamford Bridge. That may prove part of Roman Abramovich’s legacy. Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly, however, can look like Abramovich in overdrive. Maresca’s successor will be the seventh man to take charge of a match in their three-and-a-half year ownership; or, if there is a caretaker, the eighth.
Maresca could seem the latest victim of the Chelsea mid-season death loop: it cost Frank Lampard, Andre Villas-Boas and Luiz Felipe Scolari their jobs, while Carlo Ancelotti never recovered from a midwinter slump. Jose Mourinho’s December departure in 2015 reflected a wretched four months. A recurring feature, though, is that managers who win silverware can go a few months later. The 2012 Champions League winner Roberto Di Matteo did not even make it to Christmas.
Maresca’s exit might be a sign of both his failings and those of the Chelsea power brokers. It comes three days before the trip to Manchester City which, it transpires, will not be a reunion for Maresca; the suggestions that the Italian was being lined up as Pep Guardiola’s replacement looked suspiciously convenient for him. A wider assessment may be that, though he had some memorable triumphs in his time at Stamford Bridge – most recently Barcelona but particularly the extraordinary evisceration of Paris Saint-Germain in July – he was fortunate to get the Chelsea job on the basis of a solitary season with Leicester, and did not always convince in it. It would have taken a further leap of faith to imagine him as City’s first choice to succeed Guardiola.
Maresca has at least won two trophies since his mentor lifted one, yet Chelsea’s resources were so much greater than those of anyone else in the Conference League that it scarcely counted as an achievement. He may not be missed by too many in the fanbase. Some rarely found the football exciting. There were strange decisions in both selection and substitutions. There were choruses of “you don’t know what you’re doing” in Tuesday’s 2-2 draw with Bournemouth.
In his defence, the Club World Cup always threatened to have a damaging impact on this season, with Chelsea denied a break or a pre-season and some of the rotation required to try and avert injuries. Maresca has been without the catalytic Cole Palmer for much of the campaign and his best centre-back, Levi Colwill, for all of it.
But he left Chelsea in fifth, and only five points ahead of 14th. They squeaked into the Champions League last season, even if they held their nerve to win five of their last six Premier League matches then. But he has not overachieved in either top-flight season or, despite Barcelona, their Champions League campaign, with Chelsea 13th. Chelsea are eight points behind Arsenal in Europe, 15 adrift in England. There will not be a title challenge, and there has not been one under Clearlake and Boehly.
Maresca’s Chelsea had footballing flaws; temperamental ones, too. Their indiscipline has mirrored Maresca’s own. Maybe that volatility is merely another sign of a club in a constant state of flux. The spending on players since the 2022 takeover is around £1.6bn. The returns on it remain decidedly mixed, the absence of a world-class goalkeeper and centre-forward the constants.
There were players who improved under Maresca, such as the reinvented Reece James, Marc Cucurella and Moises Caicedo. There are others who didn’t: summer arrivals such as Liam Delap, Jorrel Hato, Alejandro Garnacho and Jamie Gittens have delivered too little. In each case, there may be an argument as to how much of the blame rests with the players, how much with the manager and how much with the club.
Chelsea’s model seems part of the problem, and yet, as owners and sporting directors part company with another manager, they give the impression they think they are blameless and their recruitment is inspired.
When they eschewed the old-style Chelsea appointment of a big name, it was hard to escape the sense they sought a malleable manager. They got one who masterminded the odd memorable result but whose overall record was reasonable, not remarkable, and whose defenestration was fast-tracked when relationships broke down. Meanwhile, the manner of Maresca’s meltdown in the last few weeks hardly enhanced his reputation. The road points to the Etihad for Chelsea. It may not for him. But after the last few weeks, it feels harder to determine which manager suits Chelsea or which club Maresca is best suited to manage.
Discussion about this post