🔗 Share this article

Turns out the manager was able to withstand losing against lower-league opposition. He weathered losing a crucial European final against one of the worst Tottenham teams in living memory. He withstood losing at home against domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, squandering the team's most promising academy products, a poor winning percentage, labeling his team the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary with whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to engage. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Unfortunately, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning campaign, Amorim came at the executive and seems to have failed. Even the most distracted of readers can see the irony here: a manager who often railed at his players for failing in one-on-one duels succumbing when confronted by the intense pressure and animal charisma of one of the Premier League’s most feared football executives.

In truth, this whole bruising episode appears to portray the director in a whole new light. Perhaps it might have been tempting, based on his brief stint in a similar role with the Saints, to view him as little more than a functionary in the United exoskeleton: a man who owed his position largely to his friendship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How wrong we all were. By masterfully outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated manager, just as he bested the unfortunate Dan Ashworth before him, Jason Wilcox has proved himself to be among the sport’s strategic masterminds: a strategic mind that the club's mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

The Strategic Conflict Over Formation and Philosophy

For example, this was the director who being involved in the leadership that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach in the first place, played a key role in attempting to convince Amorim to abandon his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas were resisted. However, these judgements carry more weight when delivered by a man with the impeccable soccer background he possesses, a veteran of three England caps and a role in a championship team decades past.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox might agree to explain his thought processes to the rest of us. Perhaps at some point he might be asked regarding why the coach is walking away with a full payout, without any penalty clause activated. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks publicly, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals of this sport – men like Jason Wilcox – function at a level exceeding our mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, probably all we would hear is a series of high-frequency signals and complex calculations. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being prepared to comprehend it.

The Supreme Power Behind Command

But of course, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we overlook the real power behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, after all, merely executing the commands of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has made very clear his desire for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner 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, during a leadership summit early in his minority ownership, he announced that United’s style of play “shall be decided in this room”.

Ultimately, Ratcliffe is an expert in these intricate footballing stuff, drawing from his previous experience in industry and sailing. Above all he remains incredibly rich, and as we all know, the rich are superior: more insightful, sagacious, strategically brilliant, fundamentally superior. Who else could one trust to oversee an enlightened programme of austerity, the building of a new stadium that appears similar to an abstract design, the signing of a new striker?

The New Soccer Hierarchy: Directors Over Coaches

This is a trend that is becoming prevalent in top-tier of the game. For decades, clubs foolishly delegated big footballing decisions to low-level employees like managers, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously possible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and drive to go into a club and implement their plan supported to fruition. But how many companies have such individuals set up? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Better by far to invest genuine authority where it belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the guys with impressive professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the strategy by the directors and appoint a coach who can tailor their methods accordingly. If coaches were once chefs, they have become more akin to delivery personnel: not responsible for the food, yet finally accountable if it arrives cold or leaks out of the box.

Nowadays, a coach's role is increasingly less about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative of the operation, the public face of an organisation they can do little to change. A coach at Chelsea takes a squad of literal children into Europe and secures domestic cups, and essentially is dismissed for speaking out. Wilfried Nancy sees his reputation ruined whereas those individuals who appointed him live to blunder another day.

A Neoliberal Game: Responsibility Only for the Coaches

And possibly on some microcosmic level this is simply corporate governance at work: the rise of a gilded elite who can never be wrong, whose choices are always untouchable, whose errors can invariably be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach only to dismiss him for playing excessively 3-4-3. Bring in the project manager and then bin him for requiring too long. And most importantly show gratitude; for your modest season ticket price rises, for the latest summer signings, for the reality that the adults – regardless of their expertise – remain in control.