🔗 Share this article

Tbecame clear Ruben Amorim endured defeat by lower-league opposition. He weathered a decisive European final versus a particularly poor Tottenham teams in living memory. He withstood losing at home to domestic rivals, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, squandering the team's best academy products, a poor winning percentage, calling the squad the poorest in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed a single opponent against whom Ruben Amorim was not permitted to tango. You come at Jason Wilcox, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a top-flight right-back in Blackburn’s title-winning 1994-95 season, Amorim came at Jason Wilcox and seems to have missed. The most distracted of readers can see the irony here: a manager who frequently berated his squad for losing individual battles crumbling in the face of the intense pressure and formidable presence of a the Premier League’s most intimidating sporting directors.

And frankly, this whole painful saga seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a different perspective. It may have been tempting, given his nine months in a similar role at Southampton, to view Jason Wilcox as merely a functionary within the club's structure: an individual who owed his position largely to his close relationship with ex-colleague Omar Berrada rather than any verifiable talent. How mistaken we all were. In brilliantly outmanoeuvring United’s feted manager, just as he bested the hapless a previous executive earlier, he has proved himself as one of football's true generals: a tactical intellect of which United’s competitors will now be justifiably concerned.

A Strategic Clash Regarding System & Ideology

For example, it was the director who being involved in the hierarchy that hired the rigid 3-4-3 advocate Amorim in the first place, was instrumental in attempting to convince him to abandon his favored 3-4-3. Unsurprisingly, these pleas faced pushback. However, such directives carry more weight when issued from the mouth of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree he possesses, a veteran of three England caps 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 to the rest of us. Maybe one day questions may arise regarding why the coach is departing with a full payout, with no compensation reduction clause activated. But Jason Wilcox speaks rarely publicly, for excellent reasons. The true intellectuals in football – men like Jason Wilcox – simply operate on a plane beyond our own prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, most likely all we would hear would be ultrasonic blips and four-dimensional whirring. Wanting is not quite equivalent to being ready to receive.

The Supreme Authority In the Throne

Naturally, 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 in private has made very clear his desire for a back four. It is reported, the owner has also suggested deploying the forward in a wing-back role. The owner is eager for the club to adopt analytics and analytics. Per reports, in an executive meeting early in his minority ownership, he announced that United’s style of play “shall be decided by this group”.

After all, Ratcliffe is a specialist in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and sailing. Above all he remains immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the rich are superior: more insightful, more wise, more tactically astute, fundamentally superior. Whom else would you trust to manage a strategic plan of cost-cutting, the construction of a new stadium that appears a lot like an abstract design, the acquisition of a new striker?

A New Soccer Hierarchy: Directors Over Coaches

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent at the elite levels football. Historically, teams mistakenly entrusted major sporting choices to subordinate staff like managers, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously feasible for a young, visionary coach with a philosophy and drive to join a club and implement their plan through to completion. Yet how many businesses have such individuals set up? What number of large-scale layoffs have they managed? Better by far to place the real power where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the casually dressed executives, the guys with impressive professional resumes. It is wiser to decide the tactics in the boardroom and appoint a coach who will adapt their methods to suit. If managers were formerly chefs, they are now more akin to delivery personnel: not really responsible for the food, yet finally accountable should it be delivered poorly or fails of the box.

Nowadays, a coach's role is increasingly not about crafting the philosophy and more about marketing it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, 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 two medium-sized trophies, and effectively is dismissed for speaking out. A manager at Celtic finds his reputation ruined whereas those individuals who appointed him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Game: Accountability Only for the Coaches

And possibly on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance in action: the elevation of a gilded elite 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 him for using excessively 3-4-3. Hire the project manager and later discard them for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest player acquisitions, for the fact that the grownups – however well qualified – remain in control.