🔗 Share this article

Iturns out the manager was able to withstand a loss to lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive European final versus one of the worst Spurs sides in living memory. He could survive losing at home to West Ham and Wolves, a lowly league position, an unwavering system, undermining some of the club’s most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, labeling his team the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary against whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to dance. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, similar to numerous top-flight right-back in Blackburn’s championship campaign, the coach took on the executive and appears to have failed. The most distracted of readers will notice the irony here: a manager who frequently berated at his players for failing in one-on-one duels succumbing in the face of the white heat and animal charisma of a England's top division's most intimidating football executives.

In truth, this entire painful saga appears to portray the director in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been tempting, given his brief stint in a similar role with the Saints, to regard him as merely a functionary in the United exoskeleton: a man who owed his position largely to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive rather than any verifiable talent. How wrong everyone was. By masterfully outsmarting the club's celebrated head coach, just as he bested the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has demonstrated as one of the sport’s true generals: a tactical intellect that United’s mid-table rivals are now justifiably concerned.

The Tactical Clash Over System and Ideology

To illustrate, this was Jason Wilcox , after having been part of the leadership that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach in the first place, was instrumental in trying to persuade him to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties met a certain resistance. However, these judgements hold greater authority when delivered from the mouth of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree he possesses, holder of international appearances and a role in a championship team from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually he might agree to outline his thought processes to the rest of us. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with full compensation, with no penalty clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks publicly, and with very good reason. The real thinkers of this sport – individuals such as him – simply operate on a plane beyond our own mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, most likely we would perceive is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not the same as being ready to comprehend it.

The Supreme Power Behind Command

But of course, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. The director is, after all, merely executing the directives of his line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has emphasized his preference for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for the club to embrace analytics and metrics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting early in his investment, he announced that the team's approach of play “shall be decided in this room”.

Ultimately, Sir Jim is a specialist in these intricate footballing stuff, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Above all he is incredibly rich, and as we all know, the wealthy are the best of us: more insightful, sagacious, more tactically astute, simply better. Who else could one trust to oversee an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the building of a new stadium that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

The New Football Hierarchy: Executives Above Managers

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels of the game. Historically, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff like managers, scouts – even footballers. Maybe previously possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with ideas and drive to go into an organization and see their vision through to completion. But how many companies have these guys established? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Better by far to invest the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the individuals with the jaw-dropping professional resumes. Better by far to decide the tactics by the directors and hire a coach who can tailor their methods accordingly. If coaches were once chefs, they are now more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not really creating the product, yet ultimately answerable if it arrives poorly or fails to meet standards.

Nowadays, their job has become not about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative of the operation, the public face for a club they have minimal power to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into Europe and wins two medium-sized trophies, and essentially gets sacked for speaking out. A manager at Celtic sees his reputation ruined whereas the people who appointed him live to blunder indefinitely.

The Neoliberal Football: Accountability Only for the Few

And possibly on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance in action: the elevation of a privileged overclass who can never be wrong, whose choices remain sacrosanct, whose mistakes can always be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the system coach only to fire them for using too much that system. Bring in the process guy and later discard them for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for the incremental season ticket price rises, for the latest summer signings, for the reality that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.