Milutinovic remains a significant figure in Chinese football history because he guided China to its only senior men’s World Cup finals. The report says Li sees the coach’s exit after that tournament as proof that capable football people have not always been kept inside the system.
That matters because successful football cultures usually do one thing well:
China, by contrast, has often appeared to reset instead of build.
The most striking part of Li’s argument is not nostalgia. It is his suggestion, as relayed in the report, that football knowledge has not always been the main currency in key positions. That is a familiar tension in many federations, but it has felt especially sharp in China, where ambition has long existed alongside instability, short-term thinking and abrupt changes in direction.
Former players and experienced coaches can help, but only if they are given genuine influence. Advisory roles alone do little. If Li’s complaint is fair, then the issue is structural: specialists may be present, yet not truly empowered.
Chinese football has spent years searching for a repeatable path forward - youth development, better coaching, smarter administration, stronger domestic competition. None of that works cleanly if the people making the biggest calls are not trusted for their football expertise.
That is why Li’s comments resonate. They are about more than one coach and more than 2002. The next storyline to watch is whether Chinese football’s next reform cycle gives experienced football figures real authority - or whether the same argument returns again when the next big opportunity slips away.