Tottenham Hotspur’s decline did not happen overnight. It has been building steadily since Mauricio Pochettino’s dismissal in November 2019, a moment many now regard as the beginning of a long, painful unraveling. Since then, the club has never truly found its footing. Questions about who deserves the blame have grown louder with each disappointing season.

Daniel Levy’s double-edged legacy at Tottenham

For years, Daniel Levy was celebrated as one of English football’s shrewdest chairmen. His ability to manage finances and develop infrastructure was genuinely impressive. The construction of the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium stood as a symbol of ambition. Yet ambition off the pitch did not translate into sustained success on it.

Levy’s reputation as a tough negotiator cut both ways. On one hand, it helped the club avoid reckless spending. On the other, it cost Spurs key transfer targets. Several players earmarked for signings ended up at rival clubs simply because Levy refused to meet their asking prices. Meanwhile, players Spurs wanted to sell stayed put because no buyer would match his valuations.

The wage structure also tells a revealing story. According to Deloitte’s Money League, Spurs’ wage bill last season reached £248.6m. That figure looks modest compared to the rest of the so-called Big Six. Levy ran a tight ship financially, but critics argue that tightness strangled the squad’s quality at crucial moments.

Between Pochettino’s exit and now, Spurs have spent £979m on player recruitment, recording a net spend of £653m. That is not a small club’s budget. The money was available. The question is whether it was spent wisely. Levy’s tenure will also be remembered for a revolving door of managerial instability. Twelve managers were sacked during his reign. Spurs reached 16 semi-finals and seven finals, yet silverware remained elusive. That gap between potential and achievement defines the Levy era more than any stadium or balance sheet ever could.

The new hierarchy under fire : Venkatesham, Lange and the Lewis family

With Levy’s departure, responsibility shifted to a new leadership structure. Vinai Venkatesham, formerly of Arsenal, took over as CEO. His appointment was immediately divisive given his association with Spurs’ fiercest rivals. Alongside him, Johan Lange stepped in as sporting director, while the Lewis family retained overarching control of the club’s direction.

Venkatesham arrived with a reputation built on calm, steady leadership. At Arsenal, he was credited with backing Mikel Arteta through a difficult transitional period. He attempted a similar approach at Spurs by maintaining faith in Frank as head coach despite mounting results pressure. That patience, however, may have lasted longer than the situation warranted.

• Venkatesham’s previous role at arch-rivals Arsenal fuelled scepticism from the start
• Johan Lange’s influence on recruitment decisions remains under scrutiny
• The Lewis family’s oversight role raises questions about strategic clarity
• The decision to persist with Frank before eventually acting cost valuable time

When the club finally acted and moved on from Frank, the appointment of Tudor as head coach raised immediate concerns. Tudor’s managerial record across several clubs has been, at best, inconsistent. The decision felt reactive rather than considered. It had all the hallmarks of a panic-driven choice made under pressure rather than a carefully planned strategic move.

The first months of Venkatesham’s tenure have not delivered the stability Spurs desperately needed. Scrutiny has intensified on every decision made by the new regime. Whether they acted too late with the coaching change remains a damaging open question. The club’s hierarchy now carries the weight of a potential relegation battle, an outcome that would represent a catastrophic low point for one of English football’s historically significant clubs.

Spurs’ struggles : a crisis of structure, not just results

What makes Tottenham’s current predicament so troubling is that it goes beyond a bad run of form. The roots of this crisis are structural. A pattern of managerial instability, inconsistent transfer strategy and poor squad planning has accumulated over several years. No single person carries the full weight of blame.

Levy built a platform, but left a managerial mess. The new leadership inherited that mess but has so far struggled to clean it up. The pressure on Venkatesham and Lange to demonstrate competence is enormous. Their credibility depends heavily on how this season ends. If Tudor steadies the ship and Spurs survive, the crisis narrative may soften. If relegation follows, the questions about timing, judgment and leadership will be devastating.

There is also a broader lesson here about footballing identity and long-term planning. Spurs have lacked both for several years. Without a clear playing philosophy carried consistently from the academy to the first team, recruitment becomes directionless. Managers arrive and depart before they can implement anything meaningful.

Ultimately, the Spurs crisis reflects a club caught between financial prudence and sporting ambition. Those two goals have never been properly reconciled. The spending since Pochettino’s exit proves money was not the primary obstacle. The real failure was strategic. Until Tottenham build a coherent, stable structure from top to bottom, the cycle of disappointment risks continuing regardless of who sits in the dugout or the boardroom.