Liverpool are already searching for another sporting director.
But even if they appoint someone tomorrow, I don’t think the questions surrounding the club’s football structure suddenly disappear.
In fact, there could be even more questions to come.
Richard Hughes has stepped down after two years in the role, meaning Liverpool are now looking for their fourth sporting director in four years. The search is being led by FSG president Mike Gordon, with the club’s wider football structure otherwise remaining in place.
And that brings me to the bigger issue.
How long is the next sporting director actually going to be there?
Four sporting directors in four years
This is the part that concerns me.
Liverpool have gone through Michael Edwards, Julian Ward, Jörg Schmadtke and Richard Hughes in a relatively short period of time.
Now they’re looking for another one.
You can argue that there have been perfectly understandable reasons behind some of those changes.
But eventually you have to ask whether there is a problem with the structure itself.
A sporting director needs time.
They need to understand the club.
They need to establish relationships with scouts, agents and players.
They need to work alongside the manager and understand exactly how the team is supposed to develop.
And, perhaps most importantly, they need to be thinking beyond one transfer window.
And then there is 1892 Holdings
This is where things become even more interesting.
Liverpool are entering a new ownership chapter, with 1892 Holdings having acquired a significant stake in the club alongside FSG. Recent reporting has put the consortium, led by Amit Bhatia and including figures such as Jeff Bezos and Eduardo Saverin, at around 38% of Liverpool.
What happens if that eventually develops into something much bigger?
What happens if 1892 Holdings eventually takes full control?
And what happens if the new ownership group wants to take Liverpool in a different direction?
That doesn’t mean they will.
It doesn’t mean FSG are about to disappear.
And it certainly doesn’t mean we should assume there will be a change in the football structure.
But the possibility exists.
And that makes the appointment of the next sporting director particularly important.
What if the next sporting director isn’t long-term?
This is my biggest concern.
Liverpool need someone who isn’t simply coming in to fill a vacancy.
They need somebody who can become part of the club’s long-term identity.
Someone who can work with Andoni Iraola.
Someone who can oversee recruitment.
Someone who understands the academy.
Someone who can work with the existing scouting and football-development departments.
And someone who can make decisions that might not pay off immediately but could benefit Liverpool three, four or five years down the line.
That becomes much harder if everyone is wondering who will be running the club in a couple of years.
Liverpool need stability
I don’t think Liverpool necessarily need another huge overhaul.
In fact, that’s the last thing I want.
The club already has people such as Julian Ward, Pedro Marques, David Woodfine and Barry Hunter within the football structure.
What Liverpool need is stability at the top of that structure.
And that means the next sporting director needs to be appointed with the long term in mind.
Not simply:
“Who can we get?”
But:
“Who do we want running this part of Liverpool for the next five years?”
That’s a completely different question.
What if Bhatia and 1892 want something different?
This is where nobody can honestly give us an answer.
Maybe they won’t.
Maybe the existing structure will continue.
Maybe 1892 Holdings will be perfectly happy with the way Liverpool are being run.
But if ownership eventually changes completely, the priorities could change too.
A new owner might have different ideas about recruitment.
Different ideas about spending.
Different ideas about the manager.
Different ideas about the role of the sporting director.
And suddenly you could have another change at the top.
That’s why I don’t think Liverpool can afford to get this appointment wrong.
We need someone who is here for the long haul
For me, the next sporting director should be appointed because Liverpool genuinely believe that person is capable of building something.
Not because they need somebody in the job.
Not because they need to make an announcement.
And not because the position has been empty for a few weeks.
We need the right person.
Someone who can work with Iraola.
Someone who can work within the existing football department.
Someone who understands what Liverpool are trying to become.
And, crucially, someone who is prepared to stay and see the project through.
There are still questions everywhere
That’s the uncomfortable truth.
Liverpool need a new sporting director.
But we don’t know how long that person will stay.
We don’t know exactly how the ownership situation will develop.
We don’t know whether 1892 Holdings will eventually seek full control.
And we don’t know whether a future ownership change would mean a completely different direction for the club.
So yes, appointing the next sporting director is important.
But the bigger objective has to be stability.
Liverpool have had too much change at the top of their football operation already.
I don’t want to be writing another article in 12 months saying we’re looking for another sporting director.
I want Liverpool to appoint someone who is still there years from now.
Because whoever gets the job next shouldn’t just be the fifth sporting director in four years.
They should be the person who finally brings some stability to the role.
Liverpool need a sporting director for the future — not just another sporting director for now.
Jamie (The Kopite View)
Leave a Reply