Karren Brady has taken aim at former West Ham technical director Tim Steidten in a striking column about football recruitment, but her criticism raises uncomfortable questions about the old regime she helped lead and its failure to deliver the modern recruitment structure Hammers supporters had demanded for years.

In her latest column for The Sun, the former Hammers vice-chair argues that football has created a role for sporting directors to wield power without accepting sufficient responsibility when recruitment goes wrong.

It contains a pointed attack on former West Ham technical director Tim Steidten, whose turbulent spell at the London Stadium ended in February 2025 after just two and a half years.

But for West Ham fans, there is an obvious question: why is Brady now advocating the kind of recruitment structure supporters spent years demanding while the old regime repeatedly ignored them and failed to establish it?

Brady takes aim at Steidten over West Ham failures

Brady’s column argues that Steidten’s appointment was intended to modernise West Ham’s recruitment, but confirmed his relationship with David Moyes deteriorated badly.

She points to the breakdown between the pair, Moyes’ departure in summer 2024 and the subsequent problems under Julen Lopetegui, who was sacked in January 2025. Steidten then left the club the following month.

Brady sums up the situation bluntly: “Two managers, two breakdowns, one sporting director.”

She even takes a dig at Steidten posing for pictures with his West Ham signings on private jets.

She argues that clubs must stop automatically blaming managers when recruitment fails, insisting that sporting directors should be held accountable for the players they bring in.

There is no doubt Steidten oversaw a disastrous use of West Ham’s transfer funds as a host of his signings struggled to justify their fees and West Ham’s performances deteriorated.

But Brady’s argument also seems remarkably lacking in self-awareness when viewed against the wider history of West Ham’s recruitment under the regime she was key to putting in place.

West Ham fans wanted Brighton’s model for years

For years, supporters protested for the removal of Brady and David Sullivan and called on West Ham to follow the likes of Brighton by establishing a coherent, long-term recruitment strategy led by experienced football professionals, rather than allowing transfer policy to become entangled in disagreements between managers and executives.

Now, astonishingly, Brady herself points to Brighton as an example of how recruitment should work.

Yet West Ham spent years lurching between different recruitment structures, with the likes of Mario Husillos, Rob Newman, Steidten and Kyle Macaulay occupying different roles before the club again found itself without a permanent director of football.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Brady is now explaining the importance of structures that can survive managerial changes, despite the repeated breakdowns at West Ham happening during her tenure.

Steidten’s shortcomings were real, but so was the responsibility of the board to ensure that recruitment, managerial authority and long-term planning worked together.

Brady’s criticism ignores the bigger picture

West Ham’s problems were never simply about one technical director.

Steidten clashed with Moyes, then Lopetegui, while the board ultimately had to decide how much authority he should have and whether the club’s recruitment strategy was delivering results.

The club’s own turbulence demonstrated the danger of appointing executives and managers without establishing clear responsibilities and a shared footballing vision.

Brady’s column acknowledges that principle, arguing that sporting directors and managers need complementary responsibilities, clear authority and mutual trust.

That is precisely why her criticism of Steidten cannot be separated from the decisions made above him.

West Ham supporters had been asking for a modern, professional recruitment model long before Brady’s sudden departure in April 2026. She left with the club in the midst of a relegation battle and following the publication of record financial losses, after more than 16 years on the board.

Her departure came just weeks after she publicly called on everyone at West Ham, from the boardroom to the terraces, to rally together as one to fight for survival.

Steidten should not escape accountability of course. But neither should the old regime be allowed to present his tenure as an isolated failure.

Brady is right that sporting directors must answer for their decisions. The same principle applies to the people who appoint them, define their authority and oversee the wider football operation.

For West Ham fans who spent years demanding the kind of recruitment structure Brady now praises, the column is unlikely to settle old arguments. It may simply reignite them.