Tuchel left out England's best player.

Then he called it cohesion.

October 2025. Jude Bellingham is fit, in form, arguably the best footballer England have produced in a generation. Tuchel leaves him out of the squad completely. Not injured. Not rested. Left out. And when he gets asked why, he doesn't dress it up:

"We're not looking for the most talented. We're looking for a team. Teams win trophies, nobody else does."

Let that land for a second. The manager of England looked at his most gifted player and decided the group mattered more. Then he said it out loud, to the press, knowing exactly how it would go down.

Most managers would never have the nerve.

Culture is a selection decision

Tuchel gets something most managers miss. You don't build a culture with values on the wall, or an away day, or a Slack channel called good-vibes. You build it with who you pick, who you promote and what you tolerate. That's the whole thing.

Every selection sends a message. Pick the talented bloke who drains the room and you've told everyone that talent buys you a pass on behaviour. Pick the steady one who lifts the people around him and you've told them the opposite. People don't really listen to what you say about culture. They watch who you reward.

Most leaders know this in theory. Almost none pay for it. Because paying for it means leaving talent on the bench, and that costs you in the short term, in full view of everyone, with no guarantee it works.

Tuchel is paying that price in public. At a World Cup. That's what makes him worth writing about.

Look at who he actually picked

The same logic runs through the whole squad.

Bellingham is the headline. Back in June 2025, Tuchel said Bellingham's on-pitch rage could be "a bit repulsive." He apologised for the word. He didn't apologise for the point. And he wasn't trying to kill the fire, he was clear about that: "He has the fire and I don't want to dim this down." He didn't want him calmer. He wanted that fire pointed the right way, so it lifted the group instead of souring it. Then he dropped him to prove he meant it. Then brought him back, on the group's terms.

Trent Alexander-Arnold. One of the most gifted players in the country. Left at home. Some of it for tactical and technical reasons, I'm sure. But part of it is a harder question: will he accept a supporting role, ten minutes off the bench in a tournament, and stay a good teammate while he does it? Tuchel wasn't sure. So Trent's out.

Jordan Henderson. Thirty-five. Barely playing for Brentford. In. On form alone it makes no sense, and that's the entire point. Henderson got picked to be a culture carrier in that dressing room. The rest of the squad see him as a key part of the England setup, they love having him around and he's a leader. Put him next to Trent and you see it clear as day. Trent has the talent but maybe not the willingness to sit and wait his turn. Henderson would carry the drinks all tournament and not moan once. One's out, one's in. That tells you everything about what Tuchel is really picking for.

Even Palmer and Foden left at home fits the pattern, whatever the exact reasons turn out to be. Sky put it well: this squad got built "around trust, balance and specific responsibilities rather than assembling the most famous collection of names."

Four decisions. One lens. He picked the team he could trust over the team that looked best on paper.

I've made the opposite call, and paid for it

Years ago I had a brilliant performer. Genuinely talented, the kind of person you don't replace easily, but quietly poisonous. I kept him for too long, because the talent was hard to find and I told myself the results bought the behaviour back.

They didn't. Every month I kept him, I was teaching everyone else that the standard didn't apply if you were good enough. By the time I finally moved him on, the team were delighted. It took months to replace him, but there was no drop in the quality of the work I'd been worried about.

Took me far too long to do what Tuchel did in October. Sound familiar?

The same man broke two dressing rooms doing the opposite

Now here's what stops this being a Tuchel fanboy piece.

This same man has wrecked dressing rooms doing the opposite of creating a brotherhood. At Bayern, the reporting was brutal. He had "his players" he spoke to, and a load of others he barely did. He questioned senior men in public after defeats. And the squad ended up, in one phrase that should scare any demanding manager, "afraid to lose the ball."

Read that line again. A squad of internationals, scared to make a mistake. When people stop taking risks because they're frightened of your reaction, you've lost the very thing the standards were there for. At PSG it was the same film, different cut. Brilliant start, then it curdled, then sacked on Christmas Eve.

So why might England be different? One reason. Control.

At every club, someone handed him the squad. Sporting directors, boards, transfer windows, money to fight over. The fault line in his whole career was the people above him who gave him the players. At England, that's gone. No transfer window. No board signing players he didn't want. The only lever that matters is selection, and it's entirely his.

For the first time, he owns the whole room. Which means for the first time, there's nobody else to blame.

And the warning sign is already there. The "repulsive" comment came the morning after a defeat. That's the exact move that blew up at Bayern: lose, then turn on a senior player in public. If England lose early and he reaches for it again, the bond could crack in a week. He's bet the tournament on belonging. We're about to find out whether it holds when the result is finally his alone to own.

What managers can take from this

You don't need a World Cup squad to use any of this. Here's what it means for your team on Monday.

Tuchel's bet is the boldest version of something every manager faces. The talented disruptor or the trusted teammate. He chose the team, in public, at the biggest tournament there is.

Here's the part most people miss, though. Tuchel can be this ruthless because he controls the room. No board, no transfer window, nobody above him handing him players. You might be reading this thinking it's all right for him, you don't run the place. So look again at what he's actually pulling on. Who gets picked. Who gets promoted. Who gets kept. How you challenge someone when it matters. None of those need a chief exec's job title. Every manager has them, on every team, at every level. The only question is whether you're pulling them on purpose, like Tuchel, or by default and hoping nobody notices.

That's the whole idea behind the Foundations Programme. Not how to run a company. How to use the levers you already have to set the culture in your own team. If nobody's ever shown you that, that's what it's for.

Foundations Programme — Cohort 2 — Set The Tone

Have a great week,
Arran

Arran Russell Founder, Set The Tone

​Unsubscribe · Preferences​