🔗 Share this article

Itbecame clear the manager was able to withstand losing against lower-league opposition. He weathered an important continental showpiece versus a particularly poor Tottenham teams in living memory. He could survive losing at home to domestic rivals, finishing 15th, an unwavering system, undermining the team's most promising homegrown talent, a poor winning percentage, labeling his team the worst the club has ever seen. But there was one adversary with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to dance. If you challenge Jason Wilcox, you had better succeed.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' championship 1994-95 season, the coach came at the executive and seems to have failed. Even the most casual observer can see the paradoxical situation: a manager who frequently berated his squad for losing individual battles succumbing when confronted by the white heat and animal charisma of one of England's top division's most intimidating sporting directors.

In truth, this entire bruising episode seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. It may have been easy, based on his brief stint in a similar role with the Saints, to regard him as little more than a drudge in the United exoskeleton: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his friendship with his former boss a fellow executive as any verifiable talent. How mistaken everyone was. By masterfully outmanoeuvring United’s feted head coach, just as he bested the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has proved himself to be among the sport’s strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that United’s competitors will now be justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Regarding System and Ideology

To illustrate, it was the director , after having been part of the leadership that appointed the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, was instrumental in trying to persuade Amorim to abandon his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas were resisted. But perhaps such directives hold greater authority when delivered from the mouth of a man the unimpeachable soccer background he possesses, holder of international appearances and a contributor to a championship team from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually he might agree to explain his reasoning to the rest of us. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is departing with a full payout, with no compensation reduction clause in place. The director speaks rarely in public, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals of this sport – individuals such as Jason Wilcox – simply operate on a plane exceeding our prosaic understanding. If he ever did speak, most likely all we would hear is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite the same as being ready to comprehend it.

The Ultimate Authority Behind the Throne

But of course, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the real power behind the modern United throne. The director is, after all, simply carrying out the directives of his ultimate superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his desire for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also proposed playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for United to embrace data science and metrics. Per reports, during a leadership summit soon after his minority ownership, he declared 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, leveraging his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Most importantly he is incredibly rich, and as we all know, the wealthy are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, fundamentally superior. Whom else would you trust to oversee a strategic plan of austerity, the construction of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the signing of a new striker?

The Modern Soccer Hierarchy: Executives Above Managers

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels football. Historically, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, talent spotters – players themselves. Perhaps it was once feasible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with a philosophy and drive to join a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. But how many businesses have these guys established? How many large-scale layoffs have they overseen? Far preferable to invest the real power where it belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. It is wiser to determine the tactics in the boardroom and hire a coach who will adapt their offering to suit. If managers were once chefs, they have become more like Deliveroo drivers: not responsible for the food, yet finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or fails of the box.

In the meantime, their job is increasingly not about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the receptionist of the operation, the public face for a club they can do little to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of literal children into the Champions League and secures domestic cups, and effectively gets sacked for talking. Wilfried Nancy finds his reputation ruined whereas the people who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Football: Accountability for the Coaches

And perhaps in a small way this is simply neoliberalism at work: the rise of a privileged overclass who can never be wrong, whose decisions remain sacrosanct, whose mistakes can always be resolved by sacking without explanation. Hire the 3-4-3 coach only to dismiss them for playing too much 3-4-3. Hire the project manager and then discard them for requiring excessive time. And most importantly show gratitude; for the incremental increases in ticket costs, for your new player acquisitions, for the fact that the adults – regardless of their expertise – are in charge.