As an American, I realize that dipping into the world of soccer for a leadership lesson preemptively narrows the readership. Still, even though I’m a Yank, I’ve suffered under a cloud of dissatisfaction in recent days because of the sport and thought I’d channel it into something positive.
The (not so brief) synopsis: over the weekend, England was playing Italy in final of the European Championship tournament; outside of the World Cup, this is likely the most prestigious competition in international soccer. Despite being the birthplace of soccer, England has not won a major tournament since 1966. There are now multiple generations of Brits who have never witnessed an English victory so the entire country was on edge about this game.
The game took place in London so England had a robust homefield advantage. Still, the score remained tied going into overtime (it’s actually called extra time, but trying to make it relatable for non-fans). It was a tournament so, if amatch is tied after extra time, the contest is decided on penalty kicks: a one-on-one goal scoring opportunity between a kicker and a keeper. Penalties are a controversial part of soccer—no one wants a game to be determined in such a manner—but it beats a coin toss. By this point most players have run non-stop for two hours and the threat of injury and lack of competitiveness creates the necessary evil.
I’ve been pulling for England throughout the tournament because four players on my favorite club, Manchester United, were on the roster. Even though the United players are talented, they’re constantly criticized. Manchester United is broadly despised as they’re arguable the most successful team in English soccer history; there is a massive ABU (Anyone But United) contingency globally, so many rejoice in their failure. Two United players featured prominently in the game but two more sat on the bench, waiting for an opportunity to make a difference.
After a goal in the second minute of the match, the English manager, Gareth Southgate, was determined to sit on the lead. He arranged what’s referred to as a negative tactical strategy, opting to play defense instead of pushing for another goal. After Italy tied it in the second half, they had complete momentum, dominated possession, and looked most likely to score. Despite having young, energetic players on the bench, Southgate made limited substitutions and chose to retain the defensive strategy.
In extra time, two United players (Marcus Rashford and Jadon Sancho) finally started to warm-up. Despite being young, energetic players who could impact the game, Southgate used them sparingly in the tournament but was now determined to bring them in at the very end of the final match. Yet instead of substituting them earlier, he waited until the very last minute of extra time. These two had no opportunity to touch the ball in live play. At the conclusion of the match, both were predictably chosen to take penalty kicks.
An informed viewer could see this coming a mile away and predict the inevitability of what the fallout would be. I texted this to a friend before the shootout:
As I predicted, both Rashford and Sancho missed their penalties. Another young player for England, a teenager, missed the final kick, securing the victory for Italy.
Listening to pundits the past few days, they’ve tried to avoid blame and minimize the coaching mistake here. In concept, a penalty kick should be the easiest goal a player can score. But considering the gravity of the situation, it’s was such a bizarre choice, bringing on two “cold” players to make the most important plays in English history. It’s the equivalent of having a player sit the duration of the NBA Finals and pulling him off the bench with no time on a clock to hit a free throw . . . except there’s someone in the lane trying to block the shot.
As if missing the penalties wasn’t devastating enough, the fact that they’re United players amplifies potential criticism. But even more than this, both men are black so they’ve also been subjected to racial abuse online in recent days. Fortunately, there has been widespread repudiation of the racial comments, as well as pleas to embrace the players in a challenging time. As far as the British tabloids, this is about as generous as they’ve ever been.
Regardless, we simply ought not overlook the lack of leadership from the manager that created the situation in the first place.
THE LEADERSHIP LESSON
I know that’s a lot of set-up, but it’s partially self-therapeutic as the entire affair still leaves me angry. Even though it’s just a sports, my ire is heightened because it was so avoidable.
One of the things I love about sports is that it’s a real-time opportunity to watch people perform. Quite often, athletes struggle to step up in big occasions as it’s challenging to perform in the moment—especially with thousands of fans (and millions on television) watching your every move. It’s a fascinating human experiment to see if people can deliver at a moment for which they’ve trained their whole lives.
But team sports often exposes tactical blunders, decisions disconnected from athleticism but centered on thought and preparation. This is why we shouldn’t miss an opportunity to learn from this debacle.
I’d suggest that in the European final, Southgate succumbed to a form of the endowment effect. The manager adopted a paradigm of risk aversion, and saw the 1-0 lead England achieved in the second minute of the game was something to be closely guarded. As a result, the team held back and absorbed the attack. Even after the Italians equalized, the manager decided it was best to continue to play a counter-attacking strategy—continuing to sacrifice possession in the hopes of stealing a breakaway goal after an opposition mistake.
It’s not as if Southgate invented this strategy of guarding a lead and playing conservatively (often known as “parking the bus”), but most egregiously, it didn’t suit the talents of his squad. England had a bench full of attacking players (most notably Rashford and Sancho) who could have caused Italy massive problems if unleashed to do so. Instead, the manager opted for a war of attrition that never paid off and, ultimately, cost them a trophy.
In short, the lesson to be learned is that a leader’s job it to put his or her team in the best position to be successful.
Instead of chasing the win, the manager was determined not to lose. And then, when the lead was lost, his plan B was to take players rarely used in the tournament and thrust them into the most pressure-filled situation imaginable.
In trying to be fair, let me acknowledge a couple potential objections. First, the players were professionals so shouldn’t they be expected to step up? Perhaps yes, but understand that soccer is the quintessential team sport. Instead pursuing the win altogether, the manager allowed the matter to be settled individualistically. Second, since all of this took place in a two hour window, can we allow that Southgate simply made the wrong decision in crunch time? Here, I just can’t surrender ground. A manager should be prepared for anything that could potentially happen. Lack of preparation is no excuse.
My chief frustration with Southgate, even days after my anger text above, is that he set up those players to take all the pressure of the game on their shoulders while trying to minimize his exposure to critique. If he had abandoned negative soccer for the attack, he very well could have lost the match. But in the end, he didn’t even try to risk it. The irony is that Southgate’s “claim to fame” was missing a kick in a penalty shootout that saw England out of the 1996 World Cup. But perhaps this explains the the psychology behind his tactics. Did he think that Rashford and Sancho could succeed where he had previously failed?
Again, I’m encouraged that, at least, the English are rewriting the obvious narrative by embracing the men who missed. In fact, I predict that Rashford will become one of the most accomplished players in English history. While this gentle response from the nation is impressive, I would have been more impressed had the manager had taken the risk on Sunday when it was his reputation on the line.
If you’re a leader, your job is to lead from the front. If you’re unwilling to do so, you might want to find another job.