Mourinho, Messi and the 'us against the world': toxic cohesion

Mourinho, Messi and the common-enemy strategy in football

The cohesion mechanism based on creating a shared external adversary has become a cliché in elite sport. José Mourinho's figure exemplifies this approach: building a united group against a hostile world. But the analysis of his legacy shows that the strategy, effective in the short term, tends to run out of steam when the enemy disappears or the group gets used to it.

The Messi case and the Argentina national team

Leo Messi's evolution in recent years reflects a similar pattern. His behaviour on the pitch – pointing at referees, gestures of frustration – and the internal tensions within the Argentina squad (such as the rift with Leandro Paredes) point to a culture that justifies confrontation as a driver of performance. The chronicles of the 1966 World Cup, with a match between Argentina and Germany described as one of the most violent, suggest this mindset is nothing new.

The long-term cost of hostility as a strategy

The problem with this approach is its structural fragility. When the external enemy fades away – because it is defeated or because the rival disappears – the group risks turning on itself. Mourinho's third year at Real Madrid, which ended in internal civil war, is a classic example. This cycle repeats itself in teams that base their motivation on external animosity rather than on a solid project of play and values.

The open question is whether the Argentina national team, after winning the 2022 World Cup, will know how to manage the absence of that common enemy and build an identity less dependent on conflict.