The emerging consensus in the world of football is that the Pep Guardiola era is nearing its conclusion. Having dominated the sport for more than 15 years, the Spaniard’s iconic style of play has reportedly run its course¹.

A quick history lesson may be in order for readers who don’t give a stuff about such matters. Bear with me, because this tale has a pretty clear parallel in investing – and in infrastructure investing in particular.

As the most celebrated manager of the past 20 years, Guardiola developed a footballing philosophy rooted in high levels of possession, elaborate positioning and fluid attacking formations. It brought him 14 titles in four years at Barcelona and seven in three at Bayern Munich.

More recently, “Pepism”, as it’s sometimes known, has secured 18 trophies in eight seasons for Manchester City. This happens to be the team I support, so you can perhaps forgive me for feeling dispirited by growing insinuations that what was once an all-conquering masterplan is now a busted flush.

In the end, of course, it’s basically a question of cycles. Fifty or so years ago football was wowed by something very similar to Pepism – namely, the “Total Football” school popularised by Ajax and the Dutch national side – which was duly supplanted by more direct, less intricate tactics.

Today, as Guardiola’s influence fades, counterattacking seems to be edging back into fashion. But something recognisably Pep-like could easily flourish anew one day. The trick lies in understanding where the cycle stands – or, better still, anticipating it.

This brings us to infrastructure. As the foundation of almost every economy, it’s an asset class whose basic attractions – foremost among them diversification, stability and inflation mitigation – are widely appreciated.

Yet in this arena, as in football, there’s near-constant argument over the superiority or otherwise of different strategies. One of the biggest debates centres on the respective merits of listed and unlisted securities.

Before weighing in, we should acknowledge that both approaches can have a useful role in portfolios. On balance, though, listed infrastructure is often reckoned to be the less compelling half of the duo.

In my view, this perception is inaccurate on two significant counts. The first is that the narrative surrounding unlisted infrastructure is misguided and maybe even misleading. The second is that the cycle is currently very much in listed infrastructure’s favour.

From “volatility mirage” to value opportunity

Unlike their listed counterparts, unlisted infrastructure assets aren’t subject to live valuation. Their proponents say this reduces exposure to volatility.

The politest way to describe such a claim is “mistaken”. Alternatively, we could just dismiss it as complete nonsense. The reality is that any external force that affects the economics of infrastructure assets will do so in all relevant markets, irrespective of whether they’re listed or unlisted.

This “volatility mirage”, as my colleagues and I call it, has undoubtedly played into unlisted infrastructure’s hands during the past few years. It has also helped the cause of private assets more generally.

Yet we now appear to be entering a new phase. With demand for unlisted infrastructure increasing, listed infrastructure is benefiting from a “volatility discount” – adding another layer to its appeal.

And that’s not all. The trajectory of listed infrastructure’s relationship to equities also suggests we’re at or near a point at which this corner of the investment universe merits much more attention than it has received of late.

Historically, global infrastructure has frequently generated greater cashflow growth than global equities. In tandem, it has also been more successful in avoiding sizeable drawdowns. But it has taken a back seat since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

The result? Equities have been rated up, while listed infrastructure has been rated down – leaving the latter at an absolute and relative low in valuation terms.

We believe this is extremely good news for informed investors. It could pave the way for excellent opportunities for both tactical and strategic allocations, especially given listed infrastructure’s proven capacity for delivering impressive returns over time.

Remember, too, that listed infrastructure involves no lock-ups and no barriers to exit. It also offers plenty of scope to resize positions and to tilt allocations in response to macroeconomic events.

As a Manchester City fan, I dread to think what might come once the Guardiola era officially draws to close. By contrast, as the co-manager of a global listed infrastructure fund, I’m confident we’re about to enter an exciting and rewarding new stage of the investment cycle.

Tim Humphreys is co-manager of the IFSL Marlborough Global Essential Infrastructure Fund

‍

¹ See, for example, Guardian: “The age of Guardiola is waning and the game’s guru is baffled by what comes next”, September 13 2025

‍

‍Find out more about our Global Essential Infrastructure Fund

‍

‍

This article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice to invest in any fund or product. These are the investment manager’s views at the time of writing and should not be construed as investment advice. The opinions expressed are correct at time of writing and may be subject to change. Capital is at risk. The value and income from investments can go down as well as up and are not guaranteed. An investor may get back significantly less than they invest. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of current or future performance and should not be the sole factor considered when selecting funds.