I like crazy ideas. I reached out to Vasco Samuoco back in February about having an email dialogue about a lot of the topics we bring up on Twitter and our email lists.
Vasco has a sharp mind and is a forward thinker of football based in Portugal. If you haven't already, follow him on Twitter and sign up for his newsletter.
Quick note: This conversation started back in February and only stopped right before the Euros started. We cover a lot of ground but a general theme is that the more world football changes the more it stays the same.
====
Davide: I appreciate you being a good sport and welcoming this conversation!
Let’s jump right in and talk about clubs, small clubs. What are 2 clubs outside of the top 5 leagues you like to follow and why?
Vasco: Hello, Davide!
Well! It's not easy to pick just two, because there are great clubs, very well running, even outside of the top-5 leagues. I'll say AZ Alkmaar and Brentford, because of different reasons, but also because they have one thing in common: they think differently.
What I like about AZ Alkmaar it's his youth system, how they think about talent, how they have different goals for different age groups and how they are able to feed the first team with young players. They don't have a lot of money and a big budget, but they always have good players, good teams, good results and also can get big profits because of this approach.
On the other hand, Brentford don't have a youth system, so they do a great job using different methods. Yes, Brentford is well known because of 'big data', but as far as I know, Brentford was also the first club that abdicated of having a youth system and they did that because they realized that, by being in London, they can't have the best players like Chelsea, Arsenal or Tottenham. So they save that money to invest in other areas. Very smart and only possible when you think differently or logically.
Like AZ Alkmaar, Brentford don't have a lot of money or a big budget, but they always can find good players. They are always trying new ways of being smart and competitive, finding gaps in the game and in the industry. If you are smaller and if you don't have a lot of money, you can't do the same things the others do. You have to do something different, like AZ and Brentford.
My question for you is the same. But you can't say AZ or Brentford : )
Davide: Ah well two good choices!
I’m going to pick two clubs in Denmark: Brondby IF and Silkeborg IF. Brondby historically is a massive club in Denmark. They have 10 domestic championships in their trophy case. The last few seasons have been somewhat lean however. That won’t last. They are currently top of the table in the Superligaen.
Their recruitment, led by Carsten V. Jensen their sporting director, is simple but elegant. Get young Scandinavian talent and develop them. Keep an eye out for Jesper Lindstrom and Morten Frendrup to single out two young profiles. As a club they are positioned to fight at the top of the league going forward. They have funds yet they seemingly are replenishing their ranks with undervalued players that appreciate in value.
Silkeborg is currently playing in the second tier in Danish football. They are a club that develops players. Frederik Alves. Robert Skov. Kasper Dolberg. You could say they’ve mastered the art of sell-on fees for promising players. Two players to keep an eye on: Magnus Mattsson and Anders Hagelskjaer. Mattsson is shredding defenses and Hagelskjaer is a sturdy, left footed CB with potential. Silkeborg leverages their academy to supply the first team but to also turn a profit.
Next question: How important is a club’s identity or style of play, especially for smaller clubs?
Vasco: For me, identity is everything. And have a recognized style of play is very, very important. A football club must be more than winning football games, that's why identity is the most important thing. Identity is what you think, what you do, what you defend, what you stand for, what you represent. And all of that is what creates bonds with supporters, companies and people who see the club as a model to follow because of his values.
I believe clubs need to have something that makes them different, that differentiate them. Having an attractive style of play is a way of valuing the club, valuing players and coaches. It guarantees financial income and media attention, even internationally. Also, helps the club make better decisions in terms of recruitment, not only of players that fit in that style but also of coaches that share the same vision. And if you keep that style of play you get more stability in the long-term, so you will be able to get more good results consistently. Having an attractive style play helps the clubs to be stronger in every area, in and off the pitch.
My question is: What advantages do small clubs have over large ones?
Davide: Great question. I believe there are many advantages that small clubs have at their disposal. Like everything, it’s a matter of context.
The pink elephant in the room is and always will be money. It is vital. That being said, small clubs must make better use of the money that flows through the club. Jordan Gardner, owner and chairman of FC Helsingor, has talked about this at length. Any club, regardless of size, has to be solvent to have a long term future.
I tend to view smaller clubs as startups or boot-strapped companies. Survival is the bottom line. They can’t expect parachute payments or investors to swoop in and inject money into the club. Therefore speed of implementation is an asset. Ever wonder why so many West African players play in Scandinavia? The climate and cultural differences can be massive. Why not find a club in France where there are many clubs and communities that are seemingly more compatible? There are only so many French clubs - plus those clubs don’t all have a European platform o showcase players.
Scandinavian clubs can showcase players and give them direct access to the top 5 European leagues. Smaller clubs have an understanding that is crucial in recruitment: they know that the best thing for the club is the clearest pathway for emerging talent. Let’s face it. The best talents in the world aren’t at smaller clubs - they’re at the big clubs. The other 99% have to work their way up the ladder of levels of talent. Players are bought for one reason. They can be sold for a hundred different reasons. Smaller clubs are generally more efficient in player recruitment. That is a victory in and of itself.
Question for you: What is more intriguing to you: a club enjoying sustained success or a club repeatedly defying relegation?
Vasco: I think "repeatedly defying relegation" can be "sustained success" too, if that is the goal of the club. Lots of people think that success is only about winning trophies and being champions, but success is about achieving goals and avoid relegation is a very important goal for many teams. So, if they do it they are successful. On the other hand, a club only is truly successful if they get good results in a consistent way for many years. Having good results in one season doesn't mean you have success, but having good results in five or six seasons means something. Avoid relegation can be as hard as be champion and we have to consider that those clubs have "sustained success" too.
Question for you: What are the big mistakes that clubs make and that prevent them from succeeding?
Davide: I think most clubs have one problem. They don’t know who they are or haven’t defined what type of club they want to be. Bayern (club motto: Mia San Mia= We are who we are) is chased in Germany by clubs who aspire to be challengers but are at best opportunists.
What is Borussia Dortmund truly about? What are they uncompromising on? No judgment or criticism but I don’t think it’s clear. If you look further down the pyramid in Germany it’s obvious what FC St. Pauli is about or Holstein Kiel demands. Investment without conviction of vision is merely activity. Not achievement. When you don’t know who you are as a club your managerial appointments suffer. A club more people need to be aware of is Silkeborg in Denmark. They know who they are. Decisions made are in line with where they aspire to be long term.
My question for you: What concept in football have you changed your mind on recently?
Vasco: There were two game changers for me recently.
One has to do with money and how we still think that having a lot of money is essential to have success. I don't think so. I truly believe you can beat money with ideas, by thinking differently or investing well the money you have, even if you don't have much. It's not the money that matters, it's about what you do with the money you have.
The other one is: "To win on the field you have to work well and be smart off the field". For example, I don't believe that you need the best players to have good results. Instead, I believe that you need the right people around the team, the right environment, the right context and the right culture, so that the players can perform well and express all the quality they have. We (football) don't think a lot about how the same player plays well in one club and bad in another, but that is a very important thing and shows the influence of what we don't see on the field. What happens on the field is a consequence of what happens off the field.
The same question for you :)
Davide: I’ve changed my mind on multi club ownership. I’m in no position to buy a club nor do I have any desire to be critical of any club owners. Red Bull, City Football Group, INEOS, et al have seemingly made it even more attractive to own a club. With good reason. I feel we as humans underestimate simplicity and we tend to overvalue complexity.
Running one club well is hard.
Ralf Rangnick is lauded for what he’s done in Salzburg and Leipzig. We forget about, or at least minimize, his impact at Hoffenheim. He laid a foundation almost two decades ago. Monchi has done wonders at Sevilla. And he also struggled to implement his methodology at Roma. I’m biased I’ve come to love “smaller” clubs. Smaller bets. You can implement radical change at smaller clubs and the impact can be felt fairly quickly. Big clubs, multiple club models take time to settle in, if ever. Smaller can be better. Sporting, economically and logistically.
Next Question: what is the most interesting way you’ve seen a club balance developing youth and winning games/avoiding relegation?
Vasco: I completely agree with you.
It's a difficult question. I could say AZ Alkmaar and Nordsjaelland, but, to speak about other clubs, I also like what Norwich has been doing in recent years, even though they weren't able to avoid relegation of the Premier League. But I think Norwich is doing a brilliant job in developing players, promoting them to the first team, being patient with them and still winning more matches than losing. They are the best team in one of the most difficult championships and they are going to be promote again to the Premier League and, hopefully, next year they will avoid relegation. I really like what they are doing, the way they think and do things.
Question for you: Do you have any thoughts about MLS and American soccer? What do you think about what they are doing and their improvement in recent years?
Davide: Honestly, I don’t watch much MLS or American soccer. A lot of interest and investment has been made in the game here and that will reap benefits in the coming decades. It’s just hard for me to watch.
We as a nation will produce some exciting players. I think our football/soccer culture is adrift. Until we adopt or graft an identity the results and progress will vary, wildly at times. The bottom line is that it takes time.
Here’s a tough question for you: Would you rather have a player of Lionel Messi/Cristiano class for 10 seasons or a visionary like Johann Cruyff/Ralf Rangnick for 5 years? Why?
Vasco: It's not a really tough question for me :)
I prefer, with no doubts, having a visionary like Cruyff or Rangnick. Ronaldo and Messi can give you a lot now, in the short term, but, on the other hand, as we are seeing in Barcelona or Juventus, they also transmit a sense of comodism and false confidence. People think that just because they have one or another they are going to win.
I believe that the influence of someone like Cruyff is much more antifragile, transformative, constructive and powerful. Cruyff and Rangnick change clubs, teams, cultures, coaches and players, they create value that remains even after they leave. Ronaldo and Messi ensure trophies and titles while they play, but when they leave they do not leave anything that is advantageous for the future.
Question for you: What you think about the academies? What disadvantages do you see?
Davide: You’re stealing all my good questions =)
Academies are important. Or at least they can be. I think it will always be a context driven stance. Brentford scrapped their academy. Should Luton Town or Norwich? I don’t think so. Most players don’t go on to play professionally but I don’t think that is good or bad. The real question is how are you as a club in your given community leveraging your academy? Is it strictly a profit center or trophy hunting land grab? Or are you after molding young men and women for the big picture, more than football?
FC Nordsjaelland and Right to Dream are doing this beautifully. HB Koge and FC Metz do a great job utilizing academies in West Africa for players but also funding those setups with revenue from sell-on fees. Context is paramount. Academies are important as well for molding coaches. And they are social hubs of the communities they share. Like all things they need to evaluated regularly and serve a purpose with intention.
My question for you: What’s more important for “smaller” football nations in Europe: domestic clubs doing well in continental competitions or the national team faring well at the Euros/World Cup?
Vasco: It's a very good question, but I never think a lot about it, I must say.
Both situations can say a lot about a nation and perhaps both are connected, because it's difficult to have a good national team without good clubs and a good global environment. Iceland is a great example, I think. Their national team is doing really well lately, but before that they had to improve a lot the quality of their coaches, their clubs, and their infrastructures. Without that, and because you don't have much talent, you can't have good players and a good national team.
Question: You talk a lot about Denmark and Danish clubs. In the last weeks we saw Denmark doing really well in Euro Under-21 and in the Qualifiers for the World Cup (six games, six victories). We also saw a lot of Danish players compete in major leagues, very talented young players having opportunities, clubs are improving a lot, on and off the pitch. So, which are the main secrets behind this recent success?
Davide: Denmark is hyper-focused on player development. They have a podcast, newsletters and shows that high profile players and coaches regularly appear on that are focused on development and detailing their journey.
It’s cultural. That’s the main ingredient. They expect to get better. The next Laudrup may appear before our eyes in the coming years but the ethos of the nation is one of honesty and humble ambition. The next wave of improvement will come when the coaches take that leap. You can model that growth by countries like Portugal, Germany, Italy.
Question for you: Who should have more weight in football clubs: a nutritionist or a psychologist?
Vasco: I believe that everything that helps players, coaches, persons and teams to have mental strength it's the most important thing. And it will be more and more important. Of course that what you eat and how you eat has an impact, but I think that knowing those things is easier than evolving the mind. Nutrition it's practical, but mental health it's much more complex. So, if I have to choose, I would prefer having a psychologist, or a Head of People or a Mental Coach. If I can, I want to have both.
Question for you: What do you think about the Superleague?
Davide: You couldn’t help yourself by asking about the Superleague =)!
I’m American and leagues are important here. There is a fixation on a Super(fill in the blank) League in all sports here. World football is different. European football and all football is cultural. I’m surprised those that tried to piece this together did so in the “dark”.
That in my opinion doomed it from the start. Let’s be honest and have a long term view. Some version of this will happen and the smaller clubs will suffer to a degree. But would RSC Anderlecht or FC Midtjylland win the Champions League? Probably not.
Survival is the key for small clubs. They will have to be run more like small businesses instead of branded tax shelters. Change is coming. There are ways for the FC Porto’s and the Udineses of European football to survive but it will be via operational savvy. Not broadcasting revenues via a Superleague.
My question for you: You’ve written eloquently about transparency in football and the benefits of that. Do you think we will see transparency in the future with a SuperLeague, CL format, etc?
Vasco: I really doubt that, to be honest. With the amount of money involved, the tendency is even less transparency. The majority of the clubs are in big trouble financially speaking, with big debts, so their defense is hiding what they do with the money. I think that transparency will only occur by your own initiative or if the supporters demand it really hard. Things like Financial Fair Play can help, but we already saw that it's not enough.
Question for you: Which are your favourite books about football?
Davide: So I have two books that are fundamental to my understanding of football.
Thankfully, they were two of the first books I read once I got more intrigued by football.
1. Arsene Wenger The Autobiography by Xavier Riviore So many gems in this book but my favourite takeaway was Wenger’s thought that the best way to make younger profiles better is to put them around better players. It speaks to an environment based on growth but also competition.
2. Leading: Learning from My Life and My Years at Manchester United by Alex Ferguson and Michael Moritz This is the book that made me curious about the two topics that have my full attention: leadership and recruitment. The book was co-written by the chairman of a hedge fund here in the states and I have to admit it’s one of the few books that I have ever read cover to cover in a few days.
Obviously recruitment has changed somewhat to when the Wenger and Ferguson patrolled the touch lines yet I think they figured out principles that will be relevant in perpetuity.
==
If you enjoyed this conversation sign up for my weekly email here.
