🔗 Share this article

Itranspired he endured a loss to Grimsby. He weathered an important continental showpiece against a particularly poor Tottenham teams for many years. He withstood losing at home to domestic rivals, finishing 15th, the tactical inflexibility, squandering the team's best 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 engage. You come at the sporting director, you had better succeed.

Unfortunately, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' championship 1994-95 season, Amorim took on Jason Wilcox and seems to have missed. Even the most distracted of readers will notice the irony here: a coach who often railed at his players for losing individual battles succumbing when confronted by the white heat and animal charisma of a the Premier League’s most intimidating football executives.

And frankly, this entire painful saga seems to paint Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. It may have been tempting, based on his brief stint in a similar role with the Saints, to regard him as merely a drudge in the United exoskeleton: a man whose appointment was due largely to his close relationship with ex-colleague a fellow executive rather than any verifiable talent. How wrong everyone was. In brilliantly outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth earlier, Jason Wilcox has demonstrated as one of the sport’s strategic masterminds: a strategic mind of which United’s mid-table rivals will now be rightly wary.

A Strategic Clash Regarding Formation and Ideology

For example, it was the director , after having been part of the hierarchy that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, played a key role in trying to persuade Amorim to ditch his favored 3-4-3. Naturally, these pleas faced pushback. 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 contributor to a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Perhaps in time he may be persuaded to explain his thought processes publicly. Maybe one day he might be asked why Amorim is walking away with a full payout, without any penalty clause activated. The director seldom speaks in public, for excellent reasons. The real thinkers of this sport – individuals such as him – function at a level beyond our own mundane comprehension. Were he to speak, most likely we would perceive is a series of high-frequency signals and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not quite equivalent to being prepared to receive.

An Ultimate Authority Behind Command

Naturally, in training our focus on Jason Wilcox we are obscuring the real power behind the club's current leadership. Jason Wilcox is, after all, simply carrying out the commands of his superior Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has made very clear his preference for a four-man defense. It is reported, the owner has also proposed deploying the forward as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for United to adopt data science and metrics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting early in his minority ownership, he declared that the team's approach of play “shall be determined by this group”.

After all, Ratcliffe is an expert in these intricate football matters, drawing from his background in petrochemicals and yachting. Most importantly he remains immensely wealthy, and as we all know, the rich are superior: more insightful, more wise, strategically brilliant, simply superior. Who else could one trust to manage an enlightened programme of cost-cutting, the building of a modern arena that appears similar to someone’s leftover knitting, the signing of a new striker?

The Modern Soccer Hierarchy: Executives Over Coaches

This represents a shift we are increasingly seeing at the elite levels of the game. Historically, teams mistakenly entrusted big footballing decisions to subordinate staff such as coaches, talent spotters – even footballers. Maybe previously feasible for a young, visionary coach with ideas and drive to go into an organization and implement their plan through to completion. Yet how many companies have these guys set up? What number of mass redundancies have they managed? Far preferable to place the real power where it belongs: the executive class, the open-necked shirt brigade, the guys with impressive professional resumes. Better by far to decide the strategy in the boardroom and appoint someone who will adapt their methods to suit. If managers were once chefs, they are now more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not responsible for the product, yet finally accountable if it arrives cold or fails to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role is increasingly less about defining the vision and more about marketing it: the receptionist of the operation, the public face for a club they can do little to influence. Enzo Maresca leads a team of literal children into Europe and secures domestic cups, and effectively gets sacked for talking. A manager at Celtic finds his reputation ruined whereas the people who appointed him live to blunder another day.

A Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Few

And perhaps on some microcosmic level this represents corporate governance at work: the elevation of a gilded overclass who can never be wrong, whose decisions are always untouchable, whose mistakes can always be resolved by sacking without explanation. Appoint the 3-4-3 coach only to fire them for playing too much 3-4-3. Bring in the process guy and later bin him for taking too long. And above all be grateful; for the incremental increases in ticket costs, for your new summer signings, for the reality that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – remain in control.