​Among the pre-2020 Bayern Munich cohort, Philipp Lahm has perhaps made the most intriguing career choices. After retiring, he was offered the sporting director’s job but declined it. Instead, he opted to establish a holding company and continued to manage his charitable foundation. Lahm later returned to football in a leadership capacity, serving as the tournament director of UEFA Euro 2024 after spearheading Germany’s bid to host the event. He has also authored books and written columns, particularly for The Athletic in the past two years. Through his writing, he has been remarkably outspoken since the World Cup began.
Following Germany’s exit from the Round of 32 against Paraguay, Lahm published a column in The Athletic reflecting on what went wrong for the national team. Here are the key points from his piece. The central thesis centers on identity. Lahm argues that Germany lacks a single, stable identity and, as a result, so does the national team’s manager. “Across the whole tournament, there was no stable, structured team performance from Germany. No sense of a path we were actually trying to take towards success. For a country with our footballing history, that is not enough,” he wrote. Early in the column, he draws comparisons with Argentina, Brazil, France, and Spain, suggesting these nations have maintained stable identities. “For the top teams, the way of playing doesn’t keep changing,” Lahm contends. “We keep treating the symptoms. We change the system, the lineup, the players’ positions, far too often. We are in a permanent debate about how Germany actually wants to play. And yet Germany was always strongest when it combined its individual quality with a robust, assertive mentality, placing its best players on the pitch and forging them into a true unit.”
Expanding on this argument, he turns to Julian Nagelsmann and offers two grounds for why the manager could not bear the responsibility. First, Lahm asserts that a national-team coach must exude composure, implying that Nagelsmann’s demeanor was not suitable for the role. Second, he argues that the manager did not have a clear plan that fit the players at his disposal. Lahm contends that with every decision and adjustment, it became evident that Nagelsmann lacked a coherent overarching strategy. Tactically, he claims that a possession-based approach is ill-suited for Germany, and that the nation’s true identity lies in a fast-paced game—the style that had served them well for years. Consequently, Germany’s primary objective, Lahm contends, must be to determine how they want to play before appointing their next manager. He advocates building stable hierarchies by identifying a core group that remains constant, proposing Joshua Kimmich in central midfield, Kai Havertz as a central forward, and Florian Wirtz in attacking midfield as a foundation.
Lahm also addresses Germany’s predicament against Paraguay, noting the strategic implications and the broader challenge for the team going forward. He argues that the national team must stabilize its identity, avoid constant tactical tinkering, and cultivate a core unit that can execute a shared vision with confidence. By doing so, Germany would not only fortify its psychological and tactical footing but also restore a sense of continuity that has been lacking in recent campaigns. In Lahm’s view, the path to success lies in defining a clear playing philosophy, preserving a stable core, and selecting a manager whose approach aligns with that identity, thereby enabling the team to realize its potential on the international stage.