🔗 Share this article

Itbecame clear the manager could survive a loss to Grimsby. Survive a decisive continental showpiece against one of the worst Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood home defeats to domestic rivals, a lowly league position, the tactical inflexibility, undermining some of the club’s most promising homegrown talent, a poor winning percentage, calling his team the worst in Manchester United history. Yet, there existed one adversary against whom the Portuguese coach was not permitted to tango. If you challenge the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Unfortunately, similar to numerous Premiership right-back in Blackburn’s championship 1994-95 season, the coach took on Jason Wilcox and appears to have missed. The most distracted of readers will notice the irony here: a manager who often railed at his players for failing in one-on-one duels succumbing when confronted by the white heat and formidable presence of a the Premier League’s most feared sporting directors.

And frankly, this entire painful saga appears to portray the director in a different perspective. Perhaps it might have been easy, given his brief stint of experience with the Saints, to regard Jason Wilcox as little more than a drudge in the United exoskeleton: an individual whose appointment was due as much to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive as any demonstrable skill. How mistaken we all were. In brilliantly outsmarting United’s feted manager, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has demonstrated as one of the sport’s strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that United’s mid-table rivals are now justifiably concerned.

A Tactical Clash Regarding System & Philosophy

For example, this was the director who having been part of the leadership that appointed the rigid 3-4-3 advocate the coach originally, played a key role in trying to persuade him to abandon his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas met a certain resistance. However, these judgements hold greater authority when delivered by a man of a man the unimpeachable football pedigree he possesses, holder of international appearances and a contributor to a championship team decades past.

Maybe eventually Jason Wilcox may be persuaded to outline his reasoning to the rest of us. Maybe one day questions may arise why Amorim is departing with a full payout, with no compensation reduction clause activated. The director seldom speaks publicly, and with very good reason. The true intellectuals in football – individuals such as Jason Wilcox – simply operate at a level beyond our own prosaic understanding. Were he to speak, probably we would perceive is a series of ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Wanting is not quite the same as being prepared to comprehend it.

An Supreme Power In the Throne

But of course, by focusing our attention on the sporting director we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, in reality, simply carrying out the directives of his ultimate line manager the billionaire owner, who privately has made very clear his preference for a back four. According to reports, the owner has also proposed deploying the forward in a wing-back role. Ratcliffe is keen for United to adopt data science and metrics. According to ESPN, during a leadership summit soon after his investment, he declared that United’s style to football “will be determined by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is a specialist in this technical football matters, leveraging his previous experience in petrochemicals and yachting. Above all he remains immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the wealthy are the best of us: 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 modern arena that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

The New Football Hierarchy: Executives Over Managers

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent in top-tier football. Historically, teams mistakenly delegated major sporting choices to subordinate staff such as coaches, talent spotters – players themselves. Maybe previously possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with ideas and energy to join a club and see their vision supported to fruition. But how many companies have such individuals established? What number of mass redundancies have they overseen? Better by far to invest the real power where it belongs: the executive class, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with impressive professional resumes. Better by far to decide the tactics by the directors and appoint someone who can tailor their offering accordingly. If coaches were formerly chefs, they have become more akin to delivery personnel: not responsible for the food, but still finally accountable if it arrives poorly or fails of the box.

In the meantime, their job is increasingly not about crafting the philosophy and more about selling it: the front-facing representative on the front desk, the public face for a club they can do little to influence. A coach at Chelsea leads a team of very young players into Europe and secures two medium-sized trophies, and essentially gets sacked for speaking out. Wilfried Nancy sees his reputation ruined whereas the people who appointed him continue to make errors another day.

The Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Coaches

And perhaps in a small way this represents corporate governance at work: the rise of a gilded overclass who can never be wrong, whose choices are always untouchable, whose mistakes can invariably be sacked away without justification. Hire the 3-4-3 coach only to fire them for playing excessively 3-4-3. Bring in the project manager and later bin him for taking too long. And most importantly be grateful; for your modest increases in ticket costs, for the latest summer signings, for the fact that the adults – however well qualified – remain in control.