ไทย
English
中國人
Chelsea are expected to pursue compensation from Manchester City should Enzo Maresca take over from Pep Guardiola as manager at the Etihad Stadium this summer.
Speculation linking Maresca to the City role had been building throughout the season, and a wave of reports earlier this week confirming Guardiola's intention to leave at the end of the campaign also pointed to Maresca as his likely replacement.
Chelsea are now poised to mount a legal challenge, stemming from the way their 2025–26 season unraveled in the months following Maresca's bitter and unexpected departure from Stamford Bridge in January.
According to the Telegraph, Chelsea's argument appears to be based on claims that Maresca informed the club of conversations he had with Manchester City while still employed by the Blues. The breakdown of the relationship between Maresca and Chelsea has never been publicly explained, but it seems the west London club now attribute some of the blame to that outside interest.
The Guardian separately reports that those close to Maresca have acknowledged Chelsea would be "entitled to demand a sizeable compensation package" if City were to appoint him.
Compensation is typically required when a manager is poached from an existing contract, which is not exactly the situation here, though Chelsea may still have grounds for a claim. Maresca is no longer on their payroll, but the club could attempt to establish a perceived connection between his exit and his eventual move to Manchester City—despite the gap of several months in between.
Chelsea Didn't Fire Enzo Maresca
Chelsea co-owner Behdad Eghbali recently confirmed that Maresca was not dismissed, describing the departure as "not a change [Chelsea] wanted to make." He added that legal constraints prevented him from elaborating further.
Maresca's behavior had grown increasingly erratic in December, with the manager making cryptic remarks about unnamed "people" failing to "support" him before refusing to fulfill his media obligations following the Bournemouth match on Dec. 30—moves that appeared designed to force Chelsea's hand. The club ultimately didn't sack him, but the split seemed inevitable. Their official statement simply noted that Chelsea and Maresca had "parted company."
The Guardian reported the following day that Chelsea had been "infuriated" by suspicions that Maresca had used reported interest from Manchester City and Juventus as "leverage" in negotiations for a new deal. The Blues had been among the Premier League title contenders in late November, but managed just one win from seven league outings between their defeat to Arsenal on Nov. 30 and Maresca's final match against Bournemouth on Dec. 30.
It is evident that something was festering behind closed doors—a situation that transformed a promising campaign into a catastrophe. A legal battle, with the potential exposure of the terms surrounding Maresca's Chelsea exit and the circumstances that preceded it, may ultimately bring the full story to light.