🔗 Share this article

Iturns out Ruben Amorim could survive losing against Grimsby. Survive losing a crucial European final versus one of the worst Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood home defeats against West Ham and Wolves, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, squandering some of the club’s best academy products, the 32% win rate, labeling his team the poorest in Manchester United history. But there was a single opponent with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to engage. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a top-flight right-back in Blackburn’s championship campaign, Amorim came at Jason Wilcox and seems to have missed. Even the most distracted of readers will notice the paradoxical situation: a coach who frequently berated his squad for losing one-on-one duels succumbing when confronted by the intense pressure and formidable presence of a England's top division's most intimidating sporting directors.

And frankly, 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 Jason Wilcox as merely a functionary in the United exoskeleton: a man whose appointment was due as much to his friendship with ex-colleague a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How mistaken we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the unfortunate Dan Ashworth before him, he has demonstrated to be among the sport’s strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect of which United’s mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

The Strategic Conflict Regarding Formation & Ideology

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, was instrumental in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas were resisted. But perhaps such directives carry more weight when issued from the mouth with the unimpeachable football pedigree of Jason Wilcox, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a championship team decades past.

Perhaps in time Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to explain his reasoning publicly. Perhaps at some point questions may arise regarding why the coach is departing with a full payout, without any penalty clause activated. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely in public, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals of this sport – individuals such as him – function on a plane exceeding our prosaic understanding. If he ever did speak, probably we would perceive would be high-frequency signals and four-dimensional whirring. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being ready to comprehend it.

An Ultimate Power Behind the Throne

Naturally, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we overlook the real power behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, after all, merely executing the directives of his ultimate superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who in private has made very clear his preference for a back four. According to reports, Ratcliffe has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt data science and metrics. Per reports, in an executive meeting early in his minority ownership, he declared that United’s style of play “will be determined by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in these intricate football matters, leveraging his previous experience in industry and sailing. Most importantly he remains incredibly rich, and as we all know, the rich are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, simply better. Who else could one trust to manage an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the construction of a new stadium that looks similar to an abstract design, the acquisition of Benjamin Sesko?

The New Football Hierarchy: Directors Over Managers

This is a trend we are increasingly seeing in top-tier of the game. Historically, clubs foolishly delegated big footballing decisions to low-level employees such as coaches, scouts – players themselves. Maybe previously possible for a young, innovative manager with a philosophy and drive to go into a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. Yet how many companies have these guys set up? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Better by far to invest genuine authority where it belongs: the executive class, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with impressive LinkedIn profiles. Better by far to decide the strategy by the directors and hire someone who can tailor their methods to suit. If coaches were formerly chefs, they are now more akin to delivery personnel: not responsible for the product, but still ultimately answerable if it arrives poorly or fails to meet standards.

In the meantime, their job is increasingly less about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the receptionist on the front desk, the visible figurehead for a club they have minimal power to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of very young players into Europe and wins domestic cups, and essentially is dismissed for talking. Wilfried Nancy finds his reputation ruined while the people who hired him continue to make errors indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Game: Accountability Only for the Coaches

And possibly on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance in action: the rise of a privileged elite who can never be wrong, whose choices are always sacrosanct, whose mistakes can invariably be resolved by sacking without explanation. Appoint the system coach and then fire him for playing excessively 3-4-3. Hire the project manager and later discard him for taking too long. And above all show gratitude; for the incremental increases in ticket costs, for your new summer signings, for the fact that the grownups – however well qualified – are in charge.