Chelsea ‘Prepare Legal Action’ Against Man City Over Enzo Maresca

Chelsea are tipped to seek compensation from Manchester City if Enzo Maresca ends up replacing Pep Guardiola as manager at the Etihad Stadium this summer.

Reports linking Maresca with the City job began circulating earlier this season, and the sudden surge of news earlier this week that Guardiola plans to step down at the end of the campaign also named his planned successor: Maresca.

But Chelsea are now expected to launch a legal battle, owing to the way their 2025–26 has fallen apart in the months since Maresca’s acrimonious and unforeseen Stamford Bridge exit in January.

Reported by the Telegraph, Chelsea’s case appears to rest on an allegation that Maresca informed Chelsea of discussions between himself and Manchester City while he was still with the Blues. The rapid decline of the relationship between Maresca and Chelsea has never been directly addressed in public, but it appears the west London club now see potential blame from that external flirtation.

The Guardian separately notes that it has been acknowledged from those close to Maresca that Chelsea would be “entitled to demand a sizeable compensation package” if City appoint him.

Compensation packages are standard if a manager is under contract at one club and another wants to break them out of it. That isn’t how this happened, although Chelsea might still have a case. Maresca is no longer employed by them, but the club could try to demonstrate a perceived link between his departure and eventually joining Manchester City—albeit with several months passing.

Chelsea Didn’t Fire Enzo Maresca

Chelsea co-owner Behdad Eghbali recently stated that Maresca wasn’t fired and his departure was “not a change [Chelsea] wanted to make.” He said he couldn’t say more for legal reasons.

That Maresca began behaving erratically in December, stating that undisclosed “people” didn’t “support” him and then refusing to conduct media duties after playing Bournemouth on Dec. 30 made it look like he was trying to get fired. Chelsea didn’t pull the trigger but the split felt necessary. In the club’s announcement, it was only stated that Chelsea and Maresca had “parted company.”

The Guardian reported the next day that Chelsea had been “infuriated” by a belief that Maresca tried to use interest from Manchester City and Juventus as “leverage” for a new contract. The Blues had been outside Premier League title contenders in late November, but then won just one of seven league games between losing to Arsenal on Nov. 30 and Maresca’s final game against Bournemouth on Dec. 30, when he refused the obligated media duties.

Clearly, there was a problem brewing behind the scenes, something that provided the catalyst to turn a promising season into a disaster. Perhaps a legal case, with the threat of disclosing the terms of Maresca’s Chelsea exit and the events leading up to it, will reveal all.

READ THE LATEST PREMIER LEAGUE NEWS, ANALYSIS AND INSIGHT FROM SI FC

Add us as a preferred source on Google