In an interview with SZ, Manuel Neuer’s consultant Thomas Kroth questioned the competitiveness of FC Bayern Munich and the future of his client with the German record champion. Was that the right move? A pro-and-contra by the editors Nino Duit and Felix Götz.
by Nino Duit
The founding myth of modern FC Bayern includes the arrival of the stubborn Dutchman Louis van Gaal in the summer of 2009 as well as the legendary interview with Philipp Lahm in autumn 2009. Back then, without consulting his employer beforehand, he told the SZ that he missed a recognizable philosophy.
Three and a half years later (the stubborn Dutchman was gone again, but the childish Munich player was still there) FC Bayern had won the Champions League. Whether Lahm’s interview actually triggered a rethink in the club is a mystery. But it was done – and afterwards there was both a recognizable philosophy and success. And with that to Manuel Neuer.
His advisor Thomas Kroth explained on Friday evening in the SZ that the “Munich squad is currently not yet set up to tackle Manuel’s goals seriously. Which he’s right about, of course, just like Lahm was right about 2009.
After the departure of some experienced and world-class players, FC Bayern urgently needs reinforcements if it is to continue to keep pace with Europe’s top clubs. And that is what Neuer wants and for the first time since his arrival in Munich obviously sees himself in danger. No wonder, FC Bayern is currently in the most difficult situation since 2009, since Lahm’s interview.
New is Lahm’s successor as captain of FC Bayern and as such should consider the long-term welfare of his club. He must recognise false developments and draw public attention to them, should he feel that he has been insufficiently heard internally. It doesn’t matter whether Neuer expresses his concerns personally or through his advisor as the official mouthpiece.
The message in the player’s name is decisive and, as with Lahm 2009, it was more than clearly received. Target reached.
Page 1: PRO: That’s why the statements were the right step
Page 2: CONTRA: Therefore the statements were the wrong step
