The only reason why Chelsea aren’t firing Mauricio Pochettino

Chelsea have shown some signs of life this season, including not embarrassing themselves in the League and FA Cups despite winning neither, but it has been another largely disappointing season for the Blues.

Cole Palmer’s breakout as the club’s best player since Eden Hazard has been a welcome sight, but the England international’s elite goal-scoring and chance-creation have been just about the only bright spot. Most of the other young players, such as Mykhaylo Mudryk and summer signing Nicolas Jackson, continue to disappoint.

Mauricio Pochettino’s job status has been the subject of constant speculation and conflicting rumors, but, to this point, Todd Boehly and Chelsea have shown no signs of being ready to give the former Tottenham manager the axe.

According to a report from the Evening Standard’s Nizaar Kinsella, that’s down to the fact that the Chelsea players themselves do not want Mauricio Pochettino to be fired.

The vast majority of the players would like Pochettino to stay, because they believe firing Poch would create an unstable situation at the club.

Chelsea have been marred by instability since the Boehly takeover, which included the controversial firing of Thomas Tuchel early in the American owner’s tenure. Boehly’s choice to replace Tuchel, Graham Potter, was then promptly fired soon after.

Pochettino’s results have not been any better than Potter’s, though in ninth right now and only three points behind Newcastle in seventh, some semblance of European football is at least possible for Chelsea in the 2024/25 season.

The fact of the matter is, Boehly could have easily fired Pochettino at any point this season, because he fired Tuchel and Potter for less. Most people acknowledge this reality.

But he hasn’t. He may be taking the same exact view as the players, scared to fire an established name as manager, just to have the next hire not work either and watch Chelsea spiral further into chaos. Keeping Pochettino is seen by some as akin to stagnation, but it is seen by others as a risk-averse option to avoid more disaster.