The Ultimate CRM Buyers Guide for Football Clubs
Reading time:
12 mins
Maximilian Aichinger is one of those analysts who doesn’t start with frameworks, but with questions. An editor and analyst at Spielverlagerung and former video analyst at SpVgg Unterhaching, his work sits where tactical theory meets the messy reality of football.
Based in Regensburg, Maximilian moves between academy football, applied match analysis, and writing for one of the most widely read tactics platforms in the game. His thinking is shaped less by rigid models and more by context, curiosity, and a strong focus on the “why” behind what happens on the pitch.
In this short interview, we talk about how analysis actually influences decisions, how impact shows up beyond results, and how to approach games without letting templates dictate the outcome.
My work is strongly influenced by a pronounced curiosity about the “why” on the one hand, and a consistent openness to results on the other. In my view, analysis should not be limited to images and data, but must always place them in a comprehensive context. This context can include group dynamics, game philosophy principles, and sociocultural factors. I therefore define the role of the analyst as that of a bridge builder between the coaching team, the players, and the club as a whole. An analyst must be able to understand the interests of all parties involved and always keep the big picture in mind. Accordingly, context is the key to high-quality analysis
Analysis results are often considered too short-term, which is also related to the fact that everyday footballs often characterized by a day-to-day mindset. In the long term, however, it is much more effective to focus on analyses that can have a fundamental and lasting effect. Personal conversations with players and their feedback are particularly valuable in this regard. Ultimately, however, it is always up to the players themselves to implement the analysis. Analysis cannot “work” in the sense of having a direct effect; it can only provide impetus and stimulate thought processes. This is precisely what makes it difficult to obtain clear and immediate feedback on one's own work. Frequently, it is the indirect effects and small details that have the greatest influence. Ultimately, the best thing is when you can help players on and off the field and bring them a step closer to what they want to be.
I believe that the classic game phase model, as taught in many places, only does justice to football to a limited extent. On the one hand, it neglects the interdependent aggregate states within a game, and on the other hand, it implies an even distribution and weighting of the game phases, which does not exist in this form. Accordingly, I always analyse with complete openness to the results and often work with a “blank slate.” This means that an analytical template must never predetermine the outcome of the analysis. I therefore watch games several times, start with a rough analysis, and first ask myself: What were the key points of this game?
After filtering out the key points, I then move on to a detailed analysis and provide the causes in a targeted manner with context and details. Data serves as a trigger for in-depth analysis - for example, in the case of conspicuous pass rates -and as a confirmation factor for visual impressions. Sometimes, as a rule, I first analyse the first 30 minutes of a game numerous times before looking at the rest of the game. This is because it has been scientifically proven that the game is often at its “purest” in this initial phase. If significant changes become apparent as the game progresses, I specifically include aspects of mental and physical fatigue and link these to tactical issues.
There are platforms in football that quietly shape how people think long before they shape careers. For me, Spielverlagerung is one of those places. Over the years, countless gifted analysts have used it as a space to sharpen their thinking, test ideas, and learn how to really look at the game. Many of them are now working inside professional clubs. Not because they mastered a tool or a framework, but because they learned how to reason in context. That’s why this conversation mattered to me.
What stood out in this interview with Maximilian Aichinger wasn’t a single tactical insight but his insistence on context. Context over templates. Curiosity over certainty. Analysis as a bridge, not a verdict.
That idea translates surprisingly well beyond the pitch. In CRM and marketing automation, clubs often make the same mistake analysts do: they apply models without context. Generic segments. Fixed journeys. Always-on campaigns that technically run, but don’t listen. The result looks sophisticated, but behaves rigidly.
One actionable lesson clubs can take from Maximilian’s approach is this:
treat automation like analysis, not like execution.
Before building campaigns, establish a blank-slate baseline:
Practically, that means starting with one or two context-rich triggers instead of ten static segments. For example: build a simple automation that reacts to changes in behaviour, not fan categories. A drop in attendance frequency. A shift from early to late ticket purchases. Engagement decay across channels. Then let messaging adapt to that signal, not the other way around. Just like in analysis, data should trigger questions first and confirm hypotheses second.
What I appreciated most about Maximilian’s answers is the humility embedded in them. Analysis doesn’t force outcomes. Automation doesn’t either. Both can only provide structure, reduce noise, and support better decisions. The real impact often shows up indirectly and later than expected.
