🔗 Share this article

Itbecame clear he could survive defeat by Grimsby. Survive a decisive European final versus a particularly poor Spurs sides for many years. He withstood losing at home against West Ham and Wolves, a lowly league position, his rigid approach, laying waste to some of the club’s best homegrown talent, the 32% win rate, calling his team the worst the club has ever seen. But there was one adversary with whom the Portuguese coach would not be allowed to dance. You come at the sporting director, and you best not miss.

Regrettably, like many a Premiership right-back during Blackburn Rovers' title-winning 1994-95 season, the coach came at the executive and appears 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 individual battles crumbling when confronted by the intense pressure and animal charisma of a England's top division's most feared football executives.

And frankly, this entire bruising episode appears to portray Jason Wilcox in a whole new light. It may have been tempting, given his nine months of experience with the Saints, to view Jason Wilcox as merely a drudge in the United exoskeleton: an individual whose appointment was due largely to his close relationship with his former boss a fellow executive rather than any demonstrable skill. How mistaken we all were. In brilliantly outmanoeuvring the club's celebrated head coach, as he outmanoeuvred the hapless Dan Ashworth before him, he has proved himself to be among the sport’s strategic masterminds: a tactical intellect that United’s mid-table rivals are now rightly wary.

The Strategic Conflict Over Formation and Ideology

For example, it was the director who having been part of the leadership that hired the 3-4-3 fundamentalist the coach in the first place, was instrumental in attempting to convince him to abandon his beloved 3-4-3. Naturally, these entreaties were resisted. But perhaps such directives carry more weight when issued from the mouth of a man the impeccable football pedigree of Jason Wilcox, holder of international appearances and a role in a title-winning side from 31 years ago.

Maybe eventually he might agree to explain his reasoning publicly. Maybe one day he might be asked why Amorim is departing with a full payout, with no compensation reduction clause in place. But Jason Wilcox seldom speaks in public, for excellent reasons. The real thinkers in football – individuals such as him – function at a level beyond our own mundane comprehension. If he ever did speak, most likely we would perceive would be ultrasonic blips and complex calculations. Desiring an explanation is not equivalent to being ready to comprehend it.

The Ultimate 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. The director is, after all, merely executing the commands of his line manager Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who privately has emphasized his preference for a back four. It is reported, the owner has also suggested playing Bryan Mbeumo as a right wing-back. The owner is eager for United to embrace analytics and metrics. According to ESPN, in an executive meeting early in his minority ownership, he announced that the team's approach to football “will be decided by this group”.

After all, Sir Jim is an expert in this technical footballing stuff, drawing from his background in industry and sailing. Above all he is immensely wealthy, and it is known, the rich are the best of us: more insightful, more wise, more tactically astute, fundamentally better. Whom else could one trust to manage a strategic plan of austerity, the construction of a modern arena that looks a lot like someone’s leftover knitting, the acquisition of a new striker?

A Modern Soccer Order: Directors Above Managers

This represents a shift that is becoming prevalent in top-tier of the game. For decades, clubs foolishly delegated big footballing decisions to subordinate staff like managers, talent spotters – even footballers. Perhaps it was once possible for an up-and-coming, visionary coach with a philosophy and drive to go into an organization and implement their plan through to completion. But how many businesses have these guys set up? How many mass redundancies have they managed? Far preferable to invest genuine authority where it rightly belongs: the leadership tier, the open-necked shirt brigade, the individuals with the jaw-dropping LinkedIn profiles. It is wiser to determine the tactics by the directors and hire someone who will adapt their methods to suit. If managers were formerly chefs, they are now more akin to Deliveroo drivers: not really responsible for the product, but still finally accountable if it arrives cold or fails to meet standards.

In the meantime, a coach's role has become not about crafting the philosophy and more about marketing it: the receptionist on the front desk, the public face for a club they can do little to change. Enzo Maresca leads a team of literal children into Europe and secures two medium-sized trophies, and effectively gets sacked for talking. A manager at Celtic finds his standing damaged while the people who appointed him continue to make errors indefinitely.

A Neoliberal Game: Responsibility for the Coaches

And perhaps in a small way this is simply neoliberalism at work: the elevation of a privileged overclass who can never be wrong, whose decisions remain untouchable, whose errors can invariably be sacked away without explanation. Appoint the system coach and then fire him for using excessively 3-4-3. Bring in the process guy and then bin him for requiring too long. And above all show gratitude; for your modest season ticket price rises, for your new summer signings, for the fact that the grownups – regardless of their expertise – remain in control.