🔗 Share this article

Iturns out the manager was able to withstand losing against lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive continental showpiece against a particularly poor Tottenham teams for many years. He could survive home defeats against West Ham and Wolves, a lowly league position, the tactical inflexibility, undermining some of the club’s best homegrown talent, the 32% win rate, calling his team the worst the club has ever seen. But there was one adversary against whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to dance. If you challenge the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Unfortunately, similar to numerous Premiership defender during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning 1994-95 season, Amorim came at the executive and seems to have missed. Even the most distracted of readers can see the paradoxical situation: a coach who frequently berated his squad for failing in one-on-one duels crumbling in the face of the white heat and formidable presence of a England's top division's most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this entire bruising episode appears to portray the director in a different perspective. It may have been tempting, given his brief stint in a similar role at Southampton, to view Jason Wilcox as little more than a drudge in the United exoskeleton: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada rather than any verifiable talent. How mistaken everyone was. In brilliantly outsmarting United’s feted manager, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate Dan Ashworth earlier, he has demonstrated to be among football's strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect of which the club's competitors are now justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Over Formation & Ideology

To illustrate, this was the director , after being involved in the hierarchy that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist Amorim in the first place, played a key role in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Unsurprisingly, these entreaties were resisted. However, such directives carry more weight when delivered by a man with the impeccable soccer background he possesses, holder of international appearances and a contributor to a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually he may be persuaded to outline his reasoning to the rest of us. Maybe one day questions may arise regarding why the coach is walking away with a full payout, with no penalty clause in place. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely publicly, and with very good reason. The real thinkers of this sport – individuals such as him – function on a plane exceeding our mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, most likely all we would hear would be high-frequency signals and four-dimensional whirring. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being ready to comprehend it.

The Supreme Authority Behind Command

Naturally, in training our focus on the sporting director we are obscuring the true genius behind the club's current leadership. The director is, after all, simply carrying out the directives of his line manager the billionaire owner, who in private has emphasized his preference for a back four. It is reported, the owner has also suggested deploying the forward as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt analytics and metrics. Per reports, during a leadership summit soon after his minority ownership, he announced that the team's approach to football “will be decided by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is a specialist in these intricate football matters, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Most importantly he is incredibly rich, and it is known, the wealthy are superior: more insightful, sagacious, more tactically astute, fundamentally superior. Who else could one trust to manage an enlightened programme of austerity, the building of a modern arena that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of Benjamin Sesko?

The New Soccer Order: Directors Over Coaches

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent in top-tier football. For decades, clubs foolishly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff like managers, scouts – even footballers. Perhaps it was once possible for a young, innovative manager with ideas and drive to go into an organization and see their vision supported to fruition. Yet how many businesses have such individuals established? What number of large-scale layoffs have they managed? Far preferable to place the real power where it rightly belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the guys with impressive LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to decide the tactics in the boardroom and hire someone who will adapt their methods accordingly. If coaches were formerly chefs, they are now more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not really responsible for the product, yet ultimately answerable should it be delivered poorly or fails to meet standards.

Nowadays, a coach's role has become not about defining the vision and more about selling it: the receptionist on the front desk, the visible figurehead of an organisation they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of very young players into the Champions League and secures domestic cups, and effectively is dismissed for talking. Wilfried Nancy finds his reputation ruined while the people who appointed him continue to make errors another day.

The Neoliberal Football: Accountability for the Coaches

And perhaps in a small way this represents corporate governance in action: the rise of a privileged elite who are infallible, whose decisions remain sacrosanct, whose mistakes can always be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the system coach only to dismiss them for using excessively that system. Bring in the project manager and later discard him for taking excessive time. And most importantly be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest player acquisitions, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.