Gianluca Di Marzio has taken a heavy swipe at Chelsea's version of events surrounding Enzo Maresca's departure from Stamford Bridge, accusing the club of peddling a "distorted truth" to protect their own image.
The Italian journalist's intervention adds considerable weight to a story that has dominated the football news cycle this week, with Chelsea's official statement painting Maresca as a manager who walked out on the job mid-season to chase an opportunity at the Etihad.
Di Marzio is not buying it.
Different picture
Manchester City confirmed Maresca as their new manager on a contract until 2029 this week. Their own statement was notably restrained, making no attempt to characterise the Italian's departure from Chelsea or assign blame for how things ended. Chelsea's statement was rather less diplomatic.
The London club claimed Maresca had unexpectedly and abruptly resigned in December 2025, that they felt let down, and that his head and heart were focused on another club and another opportunity. Di Marzio has now publicly challenged that narrative.
"I smiled a little bitterly at the reconstructions Chelsea made," Di Marzio said, as relayed and translated by Sport Witness. "They imposed a version of the story you will all have clearly understood did not happen. City had to pay a whopping €20 million to release Maresca and make him manager."
That €20 million compensation figure provides useful context for the prolonged legal negotiations that delayed Maresca's appointment throughout much of June. The scale of the settlement and the bitterness of Chelsea's statement both reflect how contentious the dispute became before a resolution was reached.
Unbearable situation
Di Marzio's account of the internal dynamics at Stamford Bridge paints a markedly different picture from Chelsea's preferred version.
"Chelsea is in a very particular situation where the manager can't always act with complete autonomy and independence and that's what happened with Enzo Maresca, who at a certain point had to say enough because the situation was unbearable," Di Marzio said.
"Now the whole thing has been twisted to try to get out of it cleanly with the fans, but everyone in the know knows the truth isn't what was told by the power of a press release and money."
The suggestion that Chelsea is a club where managers cannot operate with complete autonomy lends credibility to Maresca's decision to leave, shifting the moral framing away from Chelsea's narrative of a manager who simply abandoned his post.
For Maresca, now settled into his role at the Etihad and focused on preparing for his first season in charge, Di Marzio's intervention provides a degree of public rehabilitation that Chelsea's statement conspicuously denied him. Whether Chelsea respond or allow the matter to rest now the compensation settlement is formally confirmed remains to be seen, but the narrative they sought to control through a carefully worded press release appears to be slipping from their grasp.