SOME big clubs are in a perpetual state of flux at the moment: Manchester United, Celtic, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Tottenham and West Ham to name but a few. Some believe they have the right to perpetual success, others have been striving for it for decades. Managers have been sacked, often by that default explanation, “mutual consent”, and the club response has invariably been around finding a new coach who “understands the DNA of the club”. They invariably believe that “winning is in our DNA” but it is more appropriately described as the desire to win, which should actually be in every club’s “DNA”. Not everyone can win, however, and nobody is entitled to be on the victory podium on a regular basis.
If you examine the honours list at most clubs, not many are regular champions or winners. Liverpool have 47 major honours, Manchester United 44, Arsenal 31. Although this seems impressive, the roll of honour at all three has been built over a very lengthy period. Liverpool’s first trophy was won in 1901, Manchester United’s in 1908 and Arsenal’s first taste of silverware was in 1929. Before all of these clubs lifted a trophy, clubs like Aston Villa, Sunderland and Preston had been among the most dominant of clubs. In other words, it was in their DNA or desire to compete for major prizes. DNA is organic, not manufactured, which is how football teams become successful.
Clubs, generally, have their golden age and it is nearly always a temporary phenomenum. For example, the Edwardian and Victorian giants gave way to ambitious clubs like Arsenal, who after the second world war, were then overtaken by Manchester United and even their north London rivals, Tottenham. They were certainly “winners” in the 1930s, but did their relative decline mean their “DNA” had been diluted in some way? Success for Arsenal was built around an innovative manager (Herbert Chapman) and certain financial advantages, not to mention a relocation from south London that tapped into a more prosperous environment. Even before the 1920s and 1930s, clubs with money were the ones equipped to win trophies.
The post-second world war era put a strain on football clubs and some realised that producing young players was a way to make the game more sustainable. This aspect of talent management became part of the culture of clubs like Manchester United and was widely copied by others. If anything should become part of “DNA” it is surely the commitment to nurturing young players rather than splashing money around the market. United, under Matt Busby built the most successful version in the mid-to-late 1950s, the legendary but tragic “Busby babes”. Others tried to replicate this type of system, notably Leeds United, whose young team managed by Don Revie tapped into a successful youth system.
This was football that didn’t necessarily depend on having vast sums of money, which explains why so many clubs enjoyed some kind of success in the 1960s and early 1970s. Between 1960 and 1975, 20 clubs won silverware in English domestic football, while in a comparable timeframe between 2010 and 2025, just 13 caught a glimpse of success. To underline the polarisation of football, five clubs – Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United, won 41 of the 48 competitions, representing 85% of trophies.
These four clubs are, arguably, the four wealthiest and most influential in English football and they are the most successful in the modern game. Tottenham are the sixth club, but they remain an underachieving institution on the field of play. Success has become part of the “DNA” of Chelsea and Manchester City and they have joined the legacy group of Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United. Put simply, money has transformed them and now, success is expected at the Etihad Stadium and Stamford Bridge. The victims of the rise of City and Chelsea was, for a while, Arsenal, Tottenham and Manchester United. Liverpool were also compromised at one stage, but they benefitted from employing an excellent, transformational coach in Jürgen Klopp. Arsenal, who have gone 23 years without a league title, the longest gap since they won their first championship in 1931, but there are indications that they could be champions in 2026.
When a club like Manchester United believes they are searching for someone who understands the DNA of the club, they are effectively saying they are not looking for an adventurous or progressive appointment, hence former players have been queuing-up for a temporary role at Old Trafford. The fact is, everyone knows what Manchester United is all about because football followers have been told, repeatedly, the United story for decades. There is a certain amount of mythology about the style of football a club insists upon. This is largely nonsense, because it suggests that when the club hires a manager who doesn’t play the right way, they have not carried out their due diligence. The style that made, for example, United’s historic reputation, was a formation and approach of the past with some exceptional, once-in-a-lifetime players. West Ham and Tottenham have the same type of cross to bear, but ultimately, success – achieved in a variety of ways – is how the club is judged today. It may be that the search for the perfect boss will go on and on, because clubs like United and Tottenham may just be searching for someone and something that doesn’t really exist anymore.
Game of the People was founded in 2012 and is ranked among the 100 best football websites by various sources. The site consistently wins awards for its work, across a broad range of subjects. [View all posts by Neil Fredrik Jensen](https://gameofthepeople.com/author/georgefjord/)