Narcissistic, antagonistic, constantly special-pleading, always trying to play the victim. It’s tempting to see José Mourinho, sacked last week as Manchester United manager, as in some sense symbolic of our age.
The man who perfected the art of anti-football in an age lashed by the whip of anti-politics. “There are lots of poets in football,” Mourinho said after winning the Europa League in 2017 in a game that his opposite number, Ajax manager Peter Bosz, described as “boring”. But, Mourinho continued, “poets don’t win titles”.
There is, though, something profoundly shallow (a very Mourinhoesque thought) in such an analogy. In football terms, Mourinho is yesterday’s man. That’s why he got the sack. Today’s top managers definitely have a touch of poetry about them – Manchester City’s Pep Guardiola, Liverpool’s Jürgen Klopp, Tottenham’s Mauricio Pochettino, Lucien Favre of Borussia Dortmund, Sevilla’s Pablo Machín. Klopp can be highly pragmatic, but it’s a pragmatism that thrills. And Guardiola has shown that poets can win titles.
The political landscape is defined by debates over democracy. Why do many people feel voiceless? How can public anger be limited? Should expert voices count for more than ordinary people? Football has no pretence of democracy. Fans like to imagine they define a club’s DNA. Without their passion, football would certainly be meaningless. But it’s the money men who run the game. For all Guardiola’s footballing poetry, Emirati financing is what fuels City’s success.
Mourinho might have bored on with his anti-football had not the money men worried that the deteriorating relationship with his players might have a financial cost. At which point they moved to remove him. No doubt there are a few Westminster politicians who pine for similar power.
• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist
.jpg?w=600)
