The media's missing the point -- Mourinho had to go

If José Mourinho is trying to play the victim, he's well-equipped to do it: He's intelligent, well-spoken, funny and media-savvy. AP

MAILBAG Gabriele Marcotti will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Fair warning: This is another José Mourinho and Chelsea column.

You may be sick of hearing about his departure from Stamford Bridge, how he was sacked (instead of leaving by "mutual agreement") and how Chelsea is now in disrepair.

And that's why I feel I need to write something given how frightfully one-sided the coverage of Mourinho's departure has been.

Let's get one thing out of the way. If Mourinho ever finds himself in need of a job, he could easily find work as a spin doctor on Capitol Hill or as a p.r. consultant. He proved it in the aftermath of his departure, winning the media war hands down.

Everywhere you look, you find sympathy for Mourinho and a mixture of bile and ridicule directed at Roman Abramovich, Peter Kenyon, Frank Arnesen, Avram Grant and the rest of the crew which the media, in their wisdom, blame for Mourinho's passing.

Some of it is understandable. Mourinho is well-spoken, funny and intelligent. Abramovich may be all those things too, but he doesn't speak English. Kenyon does, but doesn't always know which buttons to push with the media. Arnesen speaks English, but doesn't speak in public. As for Grant, many didn't know who he was or what purpose he served until last week, which is why few take him seriously.

More to the point, the media viewed it along the lines of a very simple equation. Mourinho is a winner (in five full seasons at Porto and Chelsea, he has four league titles, three domestic cups, two League Cups, a UEFA Cup and a Champions League title to his name, a trophy haul unmatched in the modern game). And it makes no sense to sack a winner, since winning is the name of the game.

Ergo, Abramovich must be either crazy, stupid or an egomaniacal power trip. (In fact, the latter accusation is the most amusing: Abramovich is a guy who avoids the spotlight, never speaks to the press and has invested tens of billions of dollars in the press ... yet he's supposed to be the power-hungry one?)

This logic, to which we in the media have fallen prey, is riddled with inconsistencies. It's predicated on a basic notion that Mourinho shouldn't have been sacked because he did what he was supposed to do, he fulfilled his one and only task: winning.

In fact, this wasn't his only task. Especially not after he renewed his contract with the club in his second season. The team's owners made it clear that they were very pleased with the silverware piling up in the trophy cabinet, but they wanted more. They wanted the club to develop a more positive image, one that could help build the brand (the idea being that, if Chelsea grew its fan base, one day it could be economically self-sufficient).

This meant playing a more positive and entertaining style as well as avoiding some of the post-match comments and outbursts which tended to make enemies (like when Mourinho accused referee Anders Frisk of consorting with Barcelona officials in 2005 or when he called Arsène Wenger a "peeping tom").

1 of 2