🔗 Share this article

Transpired the manager was able to withstand losing against lower-league opposition. Survive an important continental showpiece against a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home against West Ham and Wolves, finishing 15th, an unwavering system, laying waste to the team's most promising homegrown talent, the 32% win rate, labeling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed a single opponent with whom Ruben Amorim would not be allowed to dance. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' championship 1994-95 season, Amorim took on the executive and appears to have missed. The most casual observer can see the paradoxical situation: a coach who often railed his squad for losing individual battles succumbing in the face of the white heat and formidable presence of one of the Premier League’s most intimidating football executives.

And frankly, this whole bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, given his brief stint in a similar role with the Saints, to view Jason Wilcox as little more than a drudge within the club's structure: a man whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada rather than any demonstrable skill. How mistaken everyone was. In brilliantly outsmarting United’s feted manager, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate Dan Ashworth earlier, Jason Wilcox has proved himself as one of the sport’s strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that the club's mid-table rivals are now justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Regarding Formation & Philosophy

For example, this was the director , after having been part of the leadership that appointed the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, played a key role in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. But perhaps such directives carry more weight when delivered by a man with the unimpeachable soccer background of Jason Wilcox, a veteran of three England caps and a contributor to a championship team decades past.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox might agree to explain his reasoning publicly. Maybe one day he might be asked why Amorim is departing with a full payout, with no penalty clause in place. The director seldom speaks publicly, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals of this sport – individuals such as him – simply operate at a level beyond our own prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, probably all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Wanting is not quite the same as being ready to comprehend it.

An Ultimate Power In the Throne

Naturally, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. The director is, in reality, merely executing the commands of his superior the billionaire owner, who privately has made very clear his preference for a four-man defense. It is reported, Ratcliffe has also proposed deploying the forward in a wing-back role. The owner is eager for United to embrace analytics and analytics. Per reports, in an executive meeting early in his investment, he announced that the team's approach of play “shall be decided by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical football matters, drawing from his background in industry and sailing. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and it is known, the wealthy are the best of us: more perceptive, more wise, more tactically astute, simply superior. Whom else would you trust to manage an enlightened programme of austerity, the construction of a modern arena that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

A Modern Soccer Order: Directors Over Coaches

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels football. For decades, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, scouts – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with a philosophy and drive to join a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. Yet how many companies have these guys established? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Better by far to place the real power where it belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the guys with impressive LinkedIn profiles. It is wiser to decide the strategy by the directors and hire someone who will adapt their methods to suit. If managers were formerly chefs, they have become more like Deliveroo drivers: not really creating the product, but still ultimately answerable should it be delivered poorly or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, their job has become not about defining the vision and more about selling it: the front-facing representative of the operation, the public face for a club they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into the Champions League and secures two medium-sized trophies, and essentially is dismissed for speaking out. A manager at Celtic finds his standing damaged whereas those individuals who appointed him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Modern Corporate Game: Accountability Only for the Coaches

And possibly in a small way this is simply neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a privileged elite who can never be wrong, whose choices are always untouchable, whose errors can invariably be resolved by sacking without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach only to fire 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 the incremental increases in ticket costs, for the latest summer signings, for the reality that the adults – however well qualified – are in charge.