Maldini's Brief Tenure as Italy's Technical Director
Paolo Maldini’s return to the heart of Italian football lasted barely long enough to leave a mark. Two weeks after accepting the role of Italy’s technical director, the former Azzurri captain walked away on Monday, joined by his advisor Leonardo, after a bitter clash over who should lead the national team from the bench.
This was not a quiet disagreement over profiles and philosophies. It was a power struggle.
Maldini’s line in the sand
Maldini and Leonardo arrived with a clear idea: if they were to be responsible for Italy’s sporting project, they would choose the coach. Their preferred candidate was Andrea Pirlo, a former teammate of Maldini and a symbol of a certain continuity of Italian footballing culture.
The Italian Olympic Committee president Giovanni Malagò and the FIGC, though, drew a hard line. Pirlo, they decided, was off the table. The reason was not tactical or technical. It was political.
Pirlo’s role as a brand ambassador for a Russian betting company triggered strong negative reactions in the political sphere, and Malagò refused to sign off on his appointment. For Maldini and Leonardo, that veto cut to the core of their mandate. If they couldn’t even choose their own coach, what exactly were they there to do?
Conte, Mancini, Motta – and a wall of “no”
Once Pirlo was blocked, Malagò tried to steer the process himself. During a decisive meeting on Monday, he urged Maldini and Leonardo to abandon the Pirlo idea and turn instead to two heavyweight options: Roberto Mancini and Antonio Conte.
On paper, both are proven winners. In practice, Maldini and Leonardo saw red flags everywhere.
With Mancini, their objection was rooted in recent history. He had resigned as Italy coach in the middle of the Euro 2024 qualifying campaign in 2023, then swiftly accepted the Saudi Arabia national team job. According to Gazzetta, Maldini and Leonardo argued that appointing Mancini now would invite the same concerns that critics raised about Pirlo: questions of reliability, timing, and the manner of his exit.
Conte posed a different kind of risk. His track record is rich in trophies but also in short cycles. Two years here, two years there, and then the rupture. With the 2030 World Cup still four years away, Maldini and Leonardo believed Conte’s tendency to move on quickly made him a dangerous bet for a long-term national project.
So they looked elsewhere.
They pushed for Thiago Motta, fresh from impressive spells with Spezia and Bologna and seen by many as one of the most interesting modern coaches in Italy. The response from Malagò was the same as with Pirlo: no. Another door slammed shut.
Autonomy denied, resignations delivered
By the time Monday’s talks ended, the positions were irreconcilable. Malagò had tried to nudge them toward Mancini or Conte. Maldini and Leonardo had stood firm, rejecting both and seeing their own choices knocked down one by one.
What remained, in their eyes, was not a shared project but a hollowed-out role. If the FIGC and political pressures would dictate the shortlist, then the technical director’s authority became cosmetic.
So they walked.
Maldini, the image of Italian defensive elegance for decades, lasted just two weeks in a role that was supposed to help shape the next era of the national team. Leonardo left with him, the pair united in their belief that their autonomy had been undermined beyond repair.
A decision looming over Coverciano
Now the responsibility swings fully back to Malagò and the FIGC. With the Council meeting scheduled for 12:00 CET (11:00 GMT), the new Italy coach could be confirmed as early as today.
The candidates on the table are clear enough. The context around each of them is anything but.
Italy will soon know who sits on the bench. The more revealing question is what, and who, truly drives the decisions behind it.
