DON’T rule out Pep Guardiola managing England in the not-too-distant future.
In fact, Thomas Tuchel was reportedly NOT the FA‘s first choice manager, despite agreeing an 18-month deal earlier this month.
Guardiola was allegedly offered the job as England manager but turned it down after “thinking about it for two months”.
That is, according to Spanish football expert Guillem Balague.
Tuchel was announced as Gareth Southgate‘s permanent successor last week.
And FA CEO Mark Bullingham revealed that he interviewed 10 managers for the role – but zero names were disclosed.
Guardiola had been linked with the England job with his £20million-a-year Manchester City contract up for renewal in the summer.
Appearing on Radio 5 Live, Balague, who is a close friend of Guardiola’s, was asked whether the England job was something the former Barcelona boss would be interested in at some point in the future.
Balague responded: “He actually was offered the job. He thought about it for two months.
“And after two months he said, ‘No because I don’t even know what I’m going to do at the end of this season’.
FOOTBALL FREE BETS AND SIGN UP DEALS
“Manchester City right now feel he’s closer to staying than leaving but nobody really knows.”
Tuchel has been given an 18-month contract by the FA, a deal that will see him take charge of England for the 2026 World Cup.
But Balague revealed that after 2026, he believes England are the favourites to secure Guardiola’s services.
He said: “What seems clear is that in the cycle from the next World Cup to the following one in 2030, Guardiola will have a national side – and England are favourites.”
But the Spaniard added: “If Tuchel wins the World Cup, forget that plan!”
Guardiola was sounded out by the FA and accused of cryptic comments which gave many England fans hope earlier this month.
One intriguing remark came on Italian TV just days before Tuchel’s announcement.
Guardiola teased: “Leaving City? It’s not true. And it is not even true that I will be the next England coach.
“If I had decided, I would say it… don’t know either, anything can happen.”
For now, Guardiola would be more likely to extend his contract at the Etihad if they are severely punished by the Premier League over their 115 financial charges, according The Mirror.
Due to the severity and huge amount of charges, there has been speculation City could be hit with a massive points deduction – or even relegated in the worst possible scenario, leading to questions Guardiola’s future.
Meanwhile Tuchel’s first matches in charge will be in March next year when he will oversee two 2026 World Cup qualifiers though England’s opponents are not yet known.
Man City vs the Premier League: Q&A
By Martin Lipton
BOTH Manchester City and the Premier League were claiming a win after their legal scrap over Associated Party Transactions.
SunSport sifts the claims to try to explain the latest issues.
What was the case about?
City were furious that Prem bosses brought in new tougher regulations – by the smallest possible majority under League rules – in February. They were aimed at blocking clubs bypassing financial controls by earning “unfair” amounts via sponsorship from a company with the same owners, or selling players on the cheap to teams under the same ownership umbrella.
Why were City so upset?
The Etihad club argued that the rules were illegal and had been deliberately aimed at them by rivals and were both flawed and politically driven. They also branded the “two thirds support” rule that has been part of Prem regulations since its inception as a “tyranny of the majority”
This was an Arbitration Tribunal – explain that?
Under Prem rules, any club has the right to ask for Arbitration if they are unhappy about the regulations or due process. The three retired judges heard evidence in June and their full ruling was distributed to the 20 Prem clubs on Monday afternoon.
And what did they say?
Depending on who you listen to, they either totally vindicated one side or the other. The actual answer is that there were “wins” for both City and the Prem. But it’s your choice which ones meant more.
OK, what were City’s wins?
Maybe the most important one in terms of the repercussions. That both the new rules and the previous version – brought in after Saudi Arabia’s PIF bought Newcastle in 2021 – were “unlawful” as they exclude shareholder loans to clubs in any APT calculations. City also won over their claims that the rulebook prevented them from responding to Prem decisions over whether two proposed deals with Abu Dhabi companies represented “Fair Market Value”, access to the “databank” of comparable deals and the time it took for decisions to be reached.
That sounds pretty big. So what about the Prem’s side?
The key finding as far as the League is concerned is that the Tribunal backed the concept of APT rules as well as the Fair Market Value tests. Additionally, City’s challenges to the actual decisions on the two proposed deals “failed”. Prem bosses insist the “rulebook has been found to comply with competition and public law standards and is an effective and necessary system”.
Is that it, then?
Of course not. That shareholder loan issue is a big deal, given that it is believed owners have loaned around £1.5bn at low or preferential rates across the Prem. Those loans will almost certainly have to be calculated at commercial rates now, unless the owners convert them into shares. But the League is convinced the main thrust of the rules remains valid.
And what will be the impact on the “115 charges” case?
Probably nothing. That is an allegation of breaking the rules, while this matter was City questioning whether one small element of the current rulebook was legitimate. But City are using the same legal team, headed by £10,000 per hour Lord Pannick KC. And the stakes on the bigger case are a great deal higher.
