🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear he could survive defeat by lower-league opposition. He weathered an important European final versus a particularly poor Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive home defeats against domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, undermining the team's best homegrown talent, a poor winning percentage, labeling his team the poorest in Manchester United history. But there was one adversary against whom Ruben Amorim would not be allowed to dance. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, like many a top-flight defender during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning 1994-95 season, the coach came at Jason Wilcox and seems to have failed. The most casual observer will notice the paradoxical situation: a manager who frequently berated at his players for losing individual battles crumbling when confronted by the white heat and formidable presence of one of the Premier League’s most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this entire painful saga seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been tempting, given his brief stint in a similar role at Southampton, to view him as merely a drudge in the United exoskeleton: an individual whose appointment was due largely to his friendship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada as any demonstrable skill. How wrong everyone was. In brilliantly outsmarting United’s feted head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless a previous executive before him, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated to be among football's true generals: a strategic mind that the club's mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

A Strategic Clash Over System and Ideology

To illustrate, this was the director , after being involved in the hierarchy that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach originally, played a key role in attempting to convince Amorim to ditch his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. But perhaps these judgements carry more weight when issued from the mouth with the unimpeachable soccer background of Jason Wilcox, holder of international appearances and a contributor to a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to explain his thought processes publicly. Maybe one day questions may arise regarding why the coach is departing with a full payout, without any compensation reduction clause in place. The director speaks rarely in public, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals in football – individuals such as Jason Wilcox – simply operate at a level exceeding our prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, probably all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being prepared to comprehend it.

The Ultimate Authority In the Throne

Naturally, in training our focus on the sporting director we are obscuring the real power behind the modern United throne. The director is, after all, merely executing the commands of his ultimate superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has emphasized his desire for a four-man defense. According to reports, Ratcliffe has also suggested deploying the forward as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for United to adopt data science and metrics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting early in his investment, he announced that the team's approach to football “will be determined by this group”.

Ultimately, Ratcliffe is a specialist in these intricate footballing stuff, leveraging his background in industry and yachting. Above all he remains immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the wealthy are superior: more insightful, more wise, more tactically astute, fundamentally better. Who else could one trust to manage a strategic plan of austerity, the construction of a new stadium that appears a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of Benjamin Sesko?

The New Football Hierarchy: Directors Above Managers

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels football. For decades, clubs foolishly entrusted big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, talent spotters – players themselves. Perhaps it was once possible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and energy to go into a club and see their vision through to completion. But how many companies have these guys established? How many large-scale layoffs have they managed? Far preferable to place the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the guys with the jaw-dropping professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the tactics by the directors and appoint someone who will adapt their offering accordingly. If managers were once chefs, they are now more like Deliveroo drivers: not responsible for the product, yet finally accountable should it be delivered cold or leaks out of the box.

In the meantime, a coach's role has become less 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 influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of literal children into the Champions League and secures domestic cups, and effectively gets sacked for speaking out. A manager at Celtic finds his reputation ruined whereas the people who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Game: Accountability for the Coaches

And possibly in a small way this is simply neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who can never be wrong, whose choices remain untouchable, whose mistakes can invariably be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach and then fire them for playing too much that system. Hire the project manager and later discard them for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for the incremental increases in ticket costs, for the latest summer signings, for the reality that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.